These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

Email CommentIgnore CommenterFollow Commenter

Search TextCase SensitiveExact WordsInclude Comments

List of Bookmarks

As I’ve long been pointing out, one of the most worrisome problems of this century is sub-Saharan African population growth. UN forecasts are staggering. The good news is that it’s likely not an insoluble problem, but only if the Great and the Good get to work on it soon.

My impression has long been that Bill Gates is, deep down, the Protestant guy appalled by Irish Catholic fecundity in Monty Python’s Meaning of Life. But even if you are Bill Gates, you have to be worried about coming out and saying: There are going to be way too many black people if we don’t do something fast.

Earlier this week, Gates came out of the closet about how worried he is about African population growth in an interview with the UK Telegraph. But now he’s written an op-ed for the NYT that treats the subject so gingerly that most of the commenters don’t seem to have much of a clue what’s Gates is driving at.

We’ve made extraordinary strides, but the hardest part is in front of us.

By Bill Gates and Melinda Gates
The writers are the founders of the Gates Foundation.

Sept. 22, 2018

Do you think the number of poor people in the world has gone up or down in the past 25 years?

This question is an excellent conversation starter because practically everybody answers it incorrectly. Primed by depressing and shocking headlines, most people assume that poverty has increased. Some people say it has held steady. Almost none are aware that in fact, more than a billion people have overcome poverty just since the turn of the millennium.

This huge drop in the number of people living on less than $1.90 per day is among the most underappreciated and most important developments of our generation.

But it’s not guaranteed to continue. In fact, progress against poverty is in jeopardy. According to current projections, the number of people in extreme poverty will stagnate at over 500 million. In the worst-case scenario, it could even start going back up.

Why has the world arrived at this crossroads? The answer is the unfortunate intersection of two demographic trends.

First, as extreme poverty disappears from many places, including China and India and, increasingly, many countries in Africa, it gets more and more concentrated in the most challenging places in the world. Poverty is especially stubborn in a group of about a dozen countries in sub-Saharan Africa marked by violent conflict, severe climate change, weak governance and broken health and education systems. More and more, extreme poverty will be a feature of life only where people’s opportunities to overcome it are brutally limited.

Second, these dozen countries are growing faster than every other place in the world. In the United States, women have an average of two children. In Niger, one of the poorest countries in the world, they have an average of seven. Births aren’t randomly distributed geographically. Rather, they are concentrated in the places where poverty is concentrated. Based on current trends, a growing proportion of babies will be born in places where adults have to devote most of their resources to survival, leaving very little to invest in their families, their communities and their countries.

This dual phenomenon of persistent poverty in fast-growing places explains why, by 2050, more than 40 percent of the extremely poor people on the planet are projected to live in just two countries: the Democratic Republic of Congo and Nigeria.

I think Gates is trying to fight the good fight here, but the intellectual climate is so hysterical these days that even if you have $80 billion or whatever Gates has, you have to tiptoe around reality.

A lot of guys from the UK are going to Uganda , marrying the young women and bringing them back home to blighty. I don’t know the full reason for this but one of the main points I noticed is that the men are 55-70 and the ladies 25-35.

Warren Buffett and his buddy Charlie Munger are the stereotypical "small-soulled bugmen" the internet warns us about. They're gaga for China and don't have much time for their fellow Whites. These guys never do.

Well, isn't that special. What's he done about it in all those decades?

The article gives the impression that world population growth has stabilized, or is close to doing so. Nothing could be further from the truth. And before anyone jumps, consider that the definition of poverty is malleable. So yes, absolute numbers matter. As far as environmental degradation is concerned, it's arguable that poor people are actually better for the planet.

Look up "world population growth chart" on Google and the top results are graphs showing the change in growth rate and a couple showing actual growth, but on a logarithmic scale.

My husband played bridge against Gates at the Omaha tournament a few years ago. I think technically it is in Council Bluffs. Gates's partner was a pro player and my husband played with his mom. My son also plays and worked as a caddy at the tournament. With grandma, our two sons and my husband, there are enough for a game when they get together. Now if we could just get the girl cousins on board...

And, poor women are the majority of women who get abortions. This is a fact.

Contraception and sexual health was introduced in schools in Northern Europe and the USA around 1970 (at least on the Coasts). I remember the wealthy HS girls and college girls I knew, took a sudden trip with mom to Bermuda/NYC/ Paris or something, just for a long weekend - wealthy young women use contraceptives; and, if there is an unwanted pregnancy, they go to a private dr. somewhere out of town. I'm sure this is still the case today.

Unwanted pregnancies do occur (or dangerous, ectopic ones) and, I am fine with abortion if it is done in the first 4-8 weeks. And, poor women raising children alone is one of the great burdens of tax payers in the Western World, so perhaps abortion is logical in many cases. I know this is a harsh opinion, but I have also seen the tough life a kid has who is low-income and is very conscious of it.

I have thoroughly taught my sons to understand sex; pregnancy; waiting for quality; behavior in the dating world; what women are like that books don't tell them, etc. There are also, fine books that allow them to understand human relationships and sexuality. I have always told them to wait until they are around 30 (one of my kids is amazingly mature at 18) to marry, and, only marry someone they completely know and that that woman also knows herself (and knows you) - saves a lot of anguish.

Speaking of sex, any thoughts on Kavanaugh playing the incel card? I wonder if he should have waited. That’s kind of the last card you want to play, if at all. Makes you wonder if it was out of desperation. I also wonder how Trump feels about it. Does he regard it as a sign of weakness, both the inceldom itself and the use of the incel card?

He merely said he was a virgin through high school and for a good time after -- that could mean, for example, until his senior year of college.

That hardly justifies a special term ("incel"). Once upon a time, a willingness to defer gratification was considered a virtue. Weren't there some psych experiments that showed that kids willing to get two pieces of candy in an hour vs. one piece right away end up doing better in life?

Nah, Kavanaugh came from a much saner time period when "incel" culture didn't exist. I mean, he probably could have attracted some partner to lose his virginity if he really wanted to, but he just didn't feel the need. Part of this probably reflects a high IQ and an ability to delay gratification in general, but it also partly reflects not being bombarded 24/7 with a sex obsessed culture that seems to mix the absolute worst aspects of sexual liberalism and conservatism at once.

(Keep in mind, I was born after the Cold War, so I can't speak from experience. This is just my impression. Older people here are free to correct me.)

>I also wonder how Trump feels about it.

I don't think he cares. Trump seems like a pretty "live and let live" sort of guy when it comes to other people's sex lives, unlike the majority of our ruling and gentry classes. And of course, for the media, this is such a radically out of this world disposition to have in 2018 that it demands immediate investigation.

Trump enjoys womanizing. He enjoys hanging out with and jawing with other womanizers. But whatever else you can say about The Donald, he's secure enough in his own perception of himself that he's not obsessed with mocking men who aren't womanizers.

If he were a real believer, he would have concentrated his efforts on birth control in Africa. Instead, his focus was on poverty and AIDS. The population has exploded in Africa to a large extent due to the efforts of philanthropists like Gates and the work of the Christian charities.

While these efforts are noble (Who can argue against alleviating suffering?) they have resulted in a population crisis in Africa that threatens not only Africa, but the West due to our suicidal liberalism.

Unlike Bono, I am doubtful that a mass migration of Africans to the West will be a good thing for the West.

Good for Africans, but not so good for Western nations and white European people.

Speaking of sex, any thoughts on Kavanaugh playing the incel card? I wonder if he should have waited. That's kind of the last card you want to play, if at all. Makes you wonder if it was out of desperation. I also wonder how Trump feels about it. Does he regard it as a sign of weakness, both the inceldom itself and the use of the incel card?

The irony is that, if he really were incel, women would be more inclined to believe that he was a rapist, not less.

My impression has long been that Bill Gates is, deep down, the Protestant guy appalled by Irish Catholic fecundity in Monty Python’s Meaning of Life.

He's also the frequent bridge partner of Warren Buffett, who's been interested in the subject for decades.

Forget golf. The ambitious college kid should take up bridge.

Warren Buffett and his buddy Charlie Munger are the stereotypical “small-soulled bugmen” the internet warns us about. They’re gaga for China and don’t have much time for their fellow Whites. These guys never do.

Buffet is a high functioning idiot savant, I doubt he feels the ethnic kinship. Eating at the same steakhouse and his routines, despite his wealth, are all signs that he is a rainman, albeit one who can pass.

Billy, it’s no longer the white man’s burden. We just need to reform our immigration system so as not to be bothered by Wakanda’s refugees. They’ll find that vibramiun deposit soon and start making engineers and taking birth control pills.

My impression has long been that Bill Gates is, deep down, the Protestant guy appalled by Irish Catholic fecundity in Monty Python’s Meaning of Life.

He's also the frequent bridge partner of Warren Buffett, who's been interested in the subject for decades.

Forget golf. The ambitious college kid should take up bridge.

Warren Buffett, who’s been interested in the subject for decades.

Well, isn’t that special. What’s he done about it in all those decades?

The article gives the impression that world population growth has stabilized, or is close to doing so. Nothing could be further from the truth. And before anyone jumps, consider that the definition of poverty is malleable. So yes, absolute numbers matter. As far as environmental degradation is concerned, it’s arguable that poor people are actually better for the planet.

Look up “world population growth chart” on Google and the top results are graphs showing the change in growth rate and a couple showing actual growth, but on a logarithmic scale.

So yes, absolute numbers matter. As far as environmental degradation is concerned, it’s arguable that poor people are actually better for the planet.

Indeed. Population growth could well be stimulated not by absolute poverty, but by the dynamics of growing opportunity at the low of the pyramid, the impression of "betterment", the mirroring of Western lifestyles, the hope to export one's siblings as cheap wives, cheap labor, and plugging in to the feed by the parents. The dynamics are willingly ill understood, less talked about.

As far as environmental degradation, poor people have a per capita lower impact definitely. Think of the "poor" deplorables in the Western world as over-dimensioned individually, roaches. Poverty does not seem to impact genetic potential, but incite genetic drift at any minute change of caloric uptake. Palm oil and corn syrup are the criminals of our world.

the definition of poverty is malleable

Poverty as in lack of food and shelter, will depress progeny on the contrary. It will immediately and violently spring back at the first signs of higher caloric uptake. Try at home. Or if you prefer, look at what "baby boom" stands for in the West.

Interestingly a lot of the “reader’s choice” comments are explicit about population growth being the core issue. These comments were the only large group of popular comments of which none were “Times’ picks” or whatever those categories are called. So I think the NYT readership is more on board with population reduction (decorated with a lot of empower and educate women feminist dressing) than the comment selectors (is that a job at the NYT?) are willing to let on. The other major groups of popular comments were “its global warming” and “you neolibs ruined the world abroad and at home.” This latter group never, ever shows up if e.g. the Trump administration is considered part of the story in a major way, which is interesting.

Overpopulation has been the real bugbear of batty left-wing types for as long as anyone can remember. You scratch the surface of any environmentalist, for instance, and you'll see the overpopulation worrier underneath. But I guess it has to remain sub-rosa in this era, for obvious reasons.

Personally, I've found the fear of overpopulation generally coexists with the urge to round up all the undesirables, put them in a rocket, and launch them into the sun. But that's just been my experience.

I think the African population boom will most likely sort itself out, as long as we don't intervene in any way. So it'll probably not sort itself out.

Population was mentioned in a couple of picks, albeit not as the main issue.

Having cancelled my subscription over Sarah Jeong, I’m spending way less time at NYT.

Time was when I’d study the comments in detail.

I did notice that one pick comment complained about Gates concerning himself over poor Africans while the people who clean offices in Silicon Valley and his workplace in Seattle can’t possibly afford to live there.

That is true, but it is way less of a problem than through the roof sub-Saharan population growth.

Hasn’t he and his billionare friends invested many billions in education/health in SSA? I read somewhere that aid to Africa doubled or tripled under GWB and Blair. Didn’t seem to make much of a dent. Even if TFR will continue to trend down, it will do so slowly. Demographic momentum will ensure that we’ll get 2 billion easily (from today’s 1 billion) and possibly up to 3 if progress will continue to be fairly incremental.

Even if SSA will continue to lag behind, if they manage to achieve per capita income growth of just 1% on average per year over the next half century, then that rising income, plus more people, will ensure much greater amounts of economic migrants.

This doesn’t even take into account rising temperature extreme events or increased automatisation, primarily AI, reducing the need for employment in many economies.

The point I’m making is, basically, even if these people got to work the catastrophe is already baked into the cake. It’s just a question of how large it will be, and, crucially, how we will manage it.

I’ve read completely unrelated articles or books about how an aid group’s work was undone by huge population increases (if I recall rightly, one example was Ethiopia). Drilling a well doesn’t do much good with high birth rates.

There’s likely many more people “noticing” the phenomenon.

But the political correctness is so strong that only a mega-donor like Bill Gates can even mention it, and even then, it can’t be the main topic or appear in the headline.

Speaking of sex, any thoughts on Kavanaugh playing the incel card? I wonder if he should have waited. That's kind of the last card you want to play, if at all. Makes you wonder if it was out of desperation. I also wonder how Trump feels about it. Does he regard it as a sign of weakness, both the inceldom itself and the use of the incel card?

I would assume that Kavanaugh was playing the voluntary celibate card.

Bill delegated the fertility issue to Melinda. When they started, it was a popular idea that if women were “empowered”, they would reduce breeding. That was a colossal fail. Meanwhile … he had to get Melinda on board.

Fail in the sense of failing to "empower" women, or "empowerment" failing to reduce breeding? Because the reasoning doesn't look disproven to me regarding Congo-Kinshasa. (Besides, Sub-Saharan fertility *has* been falling - from horribly colossal levels, and slower than in some other places.)

Speaking of sex, any thoughts on Kavanaugh playing the incel card? I wonder if he should have waited. That's kind of the last card you want to play, if at all. Makes you wonder if it was out of desperation. I also wonder how Trump feels about it. Does he regard it as a sign of weakness, both the inceldom itself and the use of the incel card?

Speaking of sex, any thoughts on Kavanaugh playing the incel card? I wonder if he should have waited. That's kind of the last card you want to play, if at all. Makes you wonder if it was out of desperation. I also wonder how Trump feels about it. Does he regard it as a sign of weakness, both the inceldom itself and the use of the incel card?

Anonymous[276] wrote:

Speaking of sex, any thoughts on Kavanaugh playing the incel card?

He merely said he was a virgin through high school and for a good time after — that could mean, for example, until his senior year of college.

That hardly justifies a special term (“incel”). Once upon a time, a willingness to defer gratification was considered a virtue. Weren’t there some psych experiments that showed that kids willing to get two pieces of candy in an hour vs. one piece right away end up doing better in life?

"I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone," Kavanaugh said. "I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years thereafter ... The girls from the schools I went to, and I, were friends."

"Through all these years that were in question, you were a virgin?" Fox News host Martha MacCallum asked.

"That’s correct," Kavanaugh replied, adding that he did not have sex until "many years after" college.

Agree. He was probably shy,and a bookworm. To call him uncle suggests a mental case ready to go off.
Whatever he is tho he MUST get on that Supreme Court!!! This is a battle that must be fought and fought hard and won!!!

Yeah, Kavanaugh was captain of the basketball team and played on the football team. Guys like that can get laid if thats all they're after. If he was celibate it was probably in some part voluntary (holding out for quality), and also some good parenting.

Plus he went to an all-boys high school which makes the story a bit more believable.

Answer: just take a look at what Indonesia, South Korea, Vietnam, China, Thailand, India, Bangladesh, Brazil, Mexico, and Iran-all nations who had 6 kids per woman as recently as a couple of generations ago-have done.

It’s very simple: carrot and stick methods. No abstract blather about feminism and assorted SJWism that immediately elicits laughter and contempt from the locals, though obviously educating female children is very important for long-term curtailing of fecundity. But in the short term, you instead make peasant parents realize that in the modern urbanized, vaccinated and Green Revolutioned age, it makes a lot more sense to invest all your resources in two children than spreading them thin with eight. These are simple (not necessarily stupid, but simple) folks: make blindingly obvious the concrete benefits in their lives, concrete benefits that they won’t have to wait too long to get and ones they can tangibly appreciate, if they decide to go for quality rather than quantity in their offspring. And then you have it make even more sense with official government. People respond to concrete, practicable incentives. Jack both up to an extreme that they begin to override cultural tendencies. Also, do what Singapore did and constantly press propaganda of happy families with two daughters to avoid Chinese/Indian style mass female infanticides. The last thing the world needs is that replicated on an even more massive scale with Africans.

Anybody who plans carefully and has 1-2 kids gets money and goodies, especially if they have a (relatively) high IQ and select their mate wisely, producing a positive effect on the gene pool. Anybody who agrees to get sterilized gets even more goodies-bonus points if you happen to not have a very high IQ. Anybody who has 7-8 kids is on their own and will be denied access to state services for their later children. Polygamists get cracked down on even harder, being flat out barred from any sort of good job. It’s not hard stuff. Basic developmental and tacit “soft eugenics” planning (I think the fanatical Gouldism of Our Betters these days has something to do with a fear of eugenics possibly becoming marginally acceptable to talk about again as memories of the Nazis begin to die) 101. Local religious figures-Christian and Muslim-who try to interfere with government policies are to be dealt with in a discreet (don’t want to create martyrs), but firm manner. Africa might be behind the rest of the world for the forseeable future, but it doesn’t have to be catastrophically so.

The overwhelming majority of ordinary people in Africa and Europe alike would benefit from this. If the Left really cares about the fate of Africans-and the thing is, they don’t really, they care about their own virtue-signalling and rubbing Deplorable faces in the dirt-they would embrace this program immediately. The New Right would be wise to expose this discrepancy for political value.

However… this will only work if the African governments themselves are willing and able to do it. It’s definitely possible, contrary to what a lot of people here seem to believe: just look at Rwanda. But it takes the right leadership: again, see Rwanda. This leadership is likely not going to be Jeffersonian democracies, which the State Department still seems to think is normative in the world. So, I have mixed feelings on the likelihood of what I’m describing. I don’t think the West peeling off the upper strata of intellgentsia as immigrants is going to be a positive development, but as far as foreign governments applying the right mix of incentives and pressure are concerned, I’m actually not too worried. The baizuo-dominated West might not be willing to do what is needed, but I don’t think the Chinese will have any such scruples, and Beijing is the big boy on the continent now. If anything, it’ll get even more obvious as eugenics inevitably becomes an open fad in Chinese culture in the coming decades.

No, the real question is whether this’ll be in time to avoid some sort of Malthusian disaster and exodus, and if not, what the Europeans realistically plan on doing when the new Volkerwanderung hit Europe’s shores. Because if they don’t sink a few damn ships early to get the message across that putting your faith in smugglers and reality-disconnected Eurocrats is a (probably fatal) waste of your time and resources, we’ll end having a lot more deaths and misery in the long-run for everybody, European and African alike.

Gates is operating under the assumption that money will improve things. He seems to recognize the problem. I suggest he make it easy and rewarding to do the right thing. Flat out bribe government leaders to embrace desired policies.

The general tone is theoretical, speculative, and far off in the future. But the disaster is already here. Just not on your literal doorstep perhaps. Even if Africans all started having one child each, though, the disaster is already here.

That you name countries such as Indonesia, China, India, Bangladesh, Brazil, and Mexico as success stories indicates--at the very least--that you and I have wildly different notions of what constitutes success.

And that you believe sinking "a few damn ships early" (which is never going to happen anyway) will "get the message across" to billions of starving Africans with nothing to lose? Well, another disconnect; to put it politely.

"No, the real question is whether this’ll be in time to avoid some sort of Malthusian disaster and exodus, and if not, what the Europeans realistically plan on doing when the new Volkerwanderung hit Europe’s shores. Because if they don’t sink a few damn ships early to get the message across that putting your faith in smugglers and reality-disconnected Eurocrats is a (probably fatal) waste of your time and resources, we’ll end having a lot more deaths and misery in the long-run for everybody, European and African alike."

You have a better chance of IDF's Air Force mistaking boats filled with migrants for an Egyptian navy ship, like they said they did in 1967.

He merely said he was a virgin through high school and for a good time after -- that could mean, for example, until his senior year of college.

That hardly justifies a special term ("incel"). Once upon a time, a willingness to defer gratification was considered a virtue. Weren't there some psych experiments that showed that kids willing to get two pieces of candy in an hour vs. one piece right away end up doing better in life?

I've been married for close to forty years and have a couple kids -- I'm way beyond being defensive about such things.

No, my point is that for the health of this society we need to get beyond the point where people are ridiculed because they don't recklessly jump into bed with anyone of the opposite sex when they are still too young to (legally) drink alochol.

I have lived through the entire "sexual revolution" from beginning to end: it has not ended well.

It's time to admit that our Victorian great-great-grandparents had more sense when it came to relations between the sexes than the people who dominate our culture today. (And, no, our Victorian ancestors were not "incels": if they had been they could not have become ancestors! But, they did have some sense that long-term commitment had something to do with sex.)

Defensive? Contemptuous, rather. Sexual discipline, self discipline, is the essence of the spiritual life, one of the most essential disciplines to being a man. Only scumbags sleep around. If you have sex with a woman not your wife, you are a debauched idiot, a fool. If you have children with a woman not your wife, or are responsible for a woman having an abortion, you are an utter cretin.

I'm no fan of Kavanaugh's neo-liberal/con pedigree, and only hope he is confirmed because I utterly despise his enemies. But if what he says about being celibate for so long is true, I admire him for it. Someone should have kept him and that stupid woman accusing him from making such utter fools of themselves as adolescents. His and Blassey Ford's yearbooks are both totally idiotic. What the adults around them were thinking, I have no idea.

All pleasures demand discipline - the most powerful, like sex and drinking, especially. We're a degraded and debauched culture because we despise such discipline, until the consequences of our hedonism begin to finally kill us.

You sneer at Kavanagh for his purported celibacy? Look at the white trash and black underclass. Their incontinence with sex and intoxicants is the recipe of their doom, perhaps the catalyst of our collective doom. Every man needs to keep his pecker in his pants until he is ready to suffer for his wife and her children. Otherwise he is no man at all, merely a stupid wretch riven by untrammeled pleasure.

He merely said he was a virgin through high school and for a good time after -- that could mean, for example, until his senior year of college.

That hardly justifies a special term ("incel"). Once upon a time, a willingness to defer gratification was considered a virtue. Weren't there some psych experiments that showed that kids willing to get two pieces of candy in an hour vs. one piece right away end up doing better in life?

“I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone,” Kavanaugh said. “I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years thereafter … The girls from the schools I went to, and I, were friends.”

“Through all these years that were in question, you were a virgin?” Fox News host Martha MacCallum asked.

“That’s correct,” Kavanaugh replied, adding that he did not have sex until “many years after” college.

“That’s correct,” Kavanaugh replied, adding that he did not have sex until “many years after” college.

You notice The Hill reporter did not put "college" in the quote: i.e., Kavanaugh did not in fact say “many years after college."

His later use of "may years after" seemed to be reiterating his earlier phrase when he said, “I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years thereafter..."

I recorded it and I just rechecked the tape to make sure of this.

MacCallum was trying to pin him down on whether he had had sex in colleg or how many years after college: he wisely left this ambiguous. The Hill reporter did a bad job of reporting, though he (sorta) covered himself by leaving the word "college" out of the quote marks.

If anything good comes out of this, perhaps some people will stop being embarrassed at the idea that a guy can wait to have sex until he truly falls in love and is ready to make a long-term commitment.

Women have been harmed enormously by the currently prevailing attitude. (It hasn't really been that great for most men, either.)

Exactly, and not just in Africa. The "investment" in Head Start and other pre-K stuff is completely wasted. Replacing the babies of the 'hood with White babies from the dumbest state in the Union would be a massive improvement, and it would stick.

He merely said he was a virgin through high school and for a good time after -- that could mean, for example, until his senior year of college.

That hardly justifies a special term ("incel"). Once upon a time, a willingness to defer gratification was considered a virtue. Weren't there some psych experiments that showed that kids willing to get two pieces of candy in an hour vs. one piece right away end up doing better in life?

Agree. He was probably shy,and a bookworm. To call him uncle suggests a mental case ready to go off.
Whatever he is tho he MUST get on that Supreme Court!!! This is a battle that must be fought and fought hard and won!!!

Speaking of sex, any thoughts on Kavanaugh playing the incel card? I wonder if he should have waited. That's kind of the last card you want to play, if at all. Makes you wonder if it was out of desperation. I also wonder how Trump feels about it. Does he regard it as a sign of weakness, both the inceldom itself and the use of the incel card?

Nah, Kavanaugh came from a much saner time period when “incel” culture didn’t exist. I mean, he probably could have attracted some partner to lose his virginity if he really wanted to, but he just didn’t feel the need. Part of this probably reflects a high IQ and an ability to delay gratification in general, but it also partly reflects not being bombarded 24/7 with a sex obsessed culture that seems to mix the absolute worst aspects of sexual liberalism and conservatism at once.

(Keep in mind, I was born after the Cold War, so I can’t speak from experience. This is just my impression. Older people here are free to correct me.)

>I also wonder how Trump feels about it.

I don’t think he cares. Trump seems like a pretty “live and let live” sort of guy when it comes to other people’s sex lives, unlike the majority of our ruling and gentry classes. And of course, for the media, this is such a radically out of this world disposition to have in 2018 that it demands immediate investigation.

Trump enjoys womanizing. He enjoys hanging out with and jawing with other womanizers. But whatever else you can say about The Donald, he’s secure enough in his own perception of himself that he’s not obsessed with mocking men who aren’t womanizers.

his paper argues that the unprecedented socioeconomic rise of African Americans at mid-century is causally related to the labor shortages induced by WWII. Results from combining novel military and Census data in a difference-in-differences setting show that counties with an average casualty rate among semi-skilled whites experienced a 13 to 16% increase in the share of blacks in semi-skilled jobs. The casualty rate also has a significant reduced form effect on cross-state migration, wages, home ownership, house value, and education for blacks. Using survey data from 1961, IV regression results indicate that the economic upgrade, which is instrumented with the semi-skilled white casualty rate, is also associated with an increase in social status. Both black and white individuals living in treated counties are more likely to have an interracial friendship, live in mixed-race neighborhoods, and to have reduced preferences for segregation.

P Burgos
September 24, 2018 at 3:18 pm

If I mention Steve Sailer’s name three times will he comment on this post? Steve Sailer, Steve Sailer. I assume that this finding reinforces his idea of “citizenism”, which if I remember correctly Janet Yellen seemed to propound a variation (talking about how maybe the Fed should place more weight on reducing unemployment, especially among blacks, as opposed to fighting inflation, which is what the cosmopolitans seems to prefer, and does the elite of the US really count as Americans, when they so loudly proclaim themselves as citizens of the world?).

Time for the phrase “labor surplus” to be coined into common usage. Starting out with academics, spin the rotors.

Answer: just take a look at what Indonesia, South Korea, Vietnam, China, Thailand, India, Bangladesh, Brazil, Mexico, and Iran-all nations who had 6 kids per woman as recently as a couple of generations ago-have done.

It's very simple: carrot and stick methods. No abstract blather about feminism and assorted SJWism that immediately elicits laughter and contempt from the locals, though obviously educating female children is very important for long-term curtailing of fecundity. But in the short term, you instead make peasant parents realize that in the modern urbanized, vaccinated and Green Revolutioned age, it makes a lot more sense to invest all your resources in two children than spreading them thin with eight. These are simple (not necessarily stupid, but simple) folks: make blindingly obvious the concrete benefits in their lives, concrete benefits that they won't have to wait too long to get and ones they can tangibly appreciate, if they decide to go for quality rather than quantity in their offspring. And then you have it make even more sense with official government. People respond to concrete, practicable incentives. Jack both up to an extreme that they begin to override cultural tendencies. Also, do what Singapore did and constantly press propaganda of happy families with two daughters to avoid Chinese/Indian style mass female infanticides. The last thing the world needs is that replicated on an even more massive scale with Africans.

Anybody who plans carefully and has 1-2 kids gets money and goodies, especially if they have a (relatively) high IQ and select their mate wisely, producing a positive effect on the gene pool. Anybody who agrees to get sterilized gets even more goodies-bonus points if you happen to not have a very high IQ. Anybody who has 7-8 kids is on their own and will be denied access to state services for their later children. Polygamists get cracked down on even harder, being flat out barred from any sort of good job. It's not hard stuff. Basic developmental and tacit "soft eugenics" planning (I think the fanatical Gouldism of Our Betters these days has something to do with a fear of eugenics possibly becoming marginally acceptable to talk about again as memories of the Nazis begin to die) 101. Local religious figures-Christian and Muslim-who try to interfere with government policies are to be dealt with in a discreet (don't want to create martyrs), but firm manner. Africa might be behind the rest of the world for the forseeable future, but it doesn't have to be catastrophically so.

The overwhelming majority of ordinary people in Africa and Europe alike would benefit from this. If the Left really cares about the fate of Africans-and the thing is, they don't really, they care about their own virtue-signalling and rubbing Deplorable faces in the dirt-they would embrace this program immediately. The New Right would be wise to expose this discrepancy for political value.

However... this will only work if the African governments themselves are willing and able to do it. It's definitely possible, contrary to what a lot of people here seem to believe: just look at Rwanda. But it takes the right leadership: again, see Rwanda. This leadership is likely not going to be Jeffersonian democracies, which the State Department still seems to think is normative in the world. So, I have mixed feelings on the likelihood of what I'm describing. I don't think the West peeling off the upper strata of intellgentsia as immigrants is going to be a positive development, but as far as foreign governments applying the right mix of incentives and pressure are concerned, I'm actually not too worried. The baizuo-dominated West might not be willing to do what is needed, but I don't think the Chinese will have any such scruples, and Beijing is the big boy on the continent now. If anything, it'll get even more obvious as eugenics inevitably becomes an open fad in Chinese culture in the coming decades.

No, the real question is whether this'll be in time to avoid some sort of Malthusian disaster and exodus, and if not, what the Europeans realistically plan on doing when the new Volkerwanderung hit Europe's shores. Because if they don't sink a few damn ships early to get the message across that putting your faith in smugglers and reality-disconnected Eurocrats is a (probably fatal) waste of your time and resources, we'll end having a lot more deaths and misery in the long-run for everybody, European and African alike.

Gates is operating under the assumption that money will improve things. He seems to recognize the problem. I suggest he make it easy and rewarding to do the right thing. Flat out bribe government leaders to embrace desired policies.

He merely said he was a virgin through high school and for a good time after -- that could mean, for example, until his senior year of college.

That hardly justifies a special term ("incel"). Once upon a time, a willingness to defer gratification was considered a virtue. Weren't there some psych experiments that showed that kids willing to get two pieces of candy in an hour vs. one piece right away end up doing better in life?

Weren’t there some psych experiments that showed that kids willing to get two pieces of candy in an hour vs. one piece right away end up doing better in life?

The salient point is that by the latter part of the 21st century, it is certain that neither north America nor western Europe will be majority white in population.

In this scenario, the full ramifications of African population growth are moot. Granted, we can expect China – which undoubtedly will dominate the planet by then – to keep the blacks out, as will India etc.

By that time, the world’s whites – already ass-whipped by Asians – won’t even be masters in their ancestral homes. The only question is whether the no doubt dark complected future rulers of the west will see sense and try to hold on to what little they’ve got, rather than be dumb enough – like their defeated white subjects – to fall for lefty/Economist bullshit.

hysterical these days that even if you have $80 billion or whatever Gates has, you have to tiptoe around reality.

He brings across some disturbing facts. That’s good & true.

(But he ain’t no strategist (he doesn’t know how to fight).

Maybe 1) he is not willing to fight, too, and Maybe 2) It might be, that even if he was willing to be more open and confrontative, it wouldn’t make much of a difference, because he would not know what to do then (= he lacks the (intellectual, of course) skills to put up a decent public fight).

So Maybe 3) we have to accept him the way he is: Bright, very rich, not selfish, a bit sheepish and a man of good faith (or should I rather say: A Steven Pinker optimist?).

Interestingly a lot of the “reader’s choice” comments are explicit about population growth being the core issue. These comments were the only large group of popular comments of which none were “Times’ picks” or whatever those categories are called. So I think the NYT readership is more on board with population reduction (decorated with a lot of empower and educate women feminist dressing) than the comment selectors (is that a job at the NYT?) are willing to let on. The other major groups of popular comments were “its global warming” and “you neolibs ruined the world abroad and at home.” This latter group never, ever shows up if e.g. the Trump administration is considered part of the story in a major way, which is interesting.

Overpopulation has been the real bugbear of batty left-wing types for as long as anyone can remember. You scratch the surface of any environmentalist, for instance, and you’ll see the overpopulation worrier underneath. But I guess it has to remain sub-rosa in this era, for obvious reasons.

Personally, I’ve found the fear of overpopulation generally coexists with the urge to round up all the undesirables, put them in a rocket, and launch them into the sun. But that’s just been my experience.

I think the African population boom will most likely sort itself out, as long as we don’t intervene in any way. So it’ll probably not sort itself out.

Overpopulation has been the real bugbear of batty left-wing types for as long as anyone can remember. You scratch the surface of any environmentalist, for instance, and you’ll see the overpopulation worrier underneath.

Look at how the world demographic has evolved and you might say the 20th century was entirely for the browns. Just about all population growth went to non-white populations. Today, getting rid of all whites would just reduce world population from 7 billion to a bit more than 6 billion.

Part of the migration into Europe is presumably due to rapid population growth and overpopulation in the Middle East. For instance, the population of Iraq and Afghanistan exploded (um) while they were being invaded by America, and now it seems the spillover heads for greener pastures. Ours.

Yes, if we ignore Africa, the population boom will very definitely sort itself out...The West created this mess by subsidizing Africa to the tune of several trillions, and now there isn't one African country that can feed itself....
But in reality, Africa's problems are not our problems unless we choose to import them here, or export food to there...Neither of which are viable long term.

I’ve been married for close to forty years and have a couple kids — I’m way beyond being defensive about such things.

No, my point is that for the health of this society we need to get beyond the point where people are ridiculed because they don’t recklessly jump into bed with anyone of the opposite sex when they are still too young to (legally) drink alochol.

I have lived through the entire “sexual revolution” from beginning to end: it has not ended well.

It’s time to admit that our Victorian great-great-grandparents had more sense when it came to relations between the sexes than the people who dominate our culture today. (And, no, our Victorian ancestors were not “incels”: if they had been they could not have become ancestors! But, they did have some sense that long-term commitment had something to do with sex.)

I agree and would add that it is perhaps a cliche in our times to ascribe voluntary celibacy until marriage as being the norm in the West only until Victorian times.

I think this is incorrect. It was pretty much the norm in Western societies until the sexual revolution in the Sixties, and definitely was, for the devout or those brought up to be religious, a large part of the population.

Voluntary celibacy until (usually arranged) marriage continues to be the norm in other societies where religion still holds sway, including in Islamic societies and among the Hindus of the Indian subcontinent. While some single men in those societies do frequent prostitutes, everything I've read, or heard about anecdotally, suggests that they are only a minority.

This is just one of those things that is very hard to understand—for those who haven't seen such a sexual culture. And relatively easy for those who have seen such a culture or moral norm.

Warren Buffett and his buddy Charlie Munger are the stereotypical "small-soulled bugmen" the internet warns us about. They're gaga for China and don't have much time for their fellow Whites. These guys never do.

Buffet is a high functioning idiot savant, I doubt he feels the ethnic kinship. Eating at the same steakhouse and his routines, despite his wealth, are all signs that he is a rainman, albeit one who can pass.

Some years ago--in the last century--Buffet had informed his three children that they were getting nothing from his estate--he'd sufficiently gifted to/supported them while alive. (Buffet apparently gave each of his children ~$1 billion in Berkshire Hathaway stock with which to pursue their own independent philanthropic activities.)

Buffet seems to have softened with age as son Howard is now considerably involved in Berkshire Hathaway, with Warren indicating he'd like Howard to succeed him as non-executive chairman upon his own death.

Buffet is a high functioning idiot savant, I doubt he feels the ethnic kinship. Eating at the same steakhouse and his routines, despite his wealth, are all signs that he is a rainman, albeit one who can pass.

"I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone," Kavanaugh said. "I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years thereafter ... The girls from the schools I went to, and I, were friends."

"Through all these years that were in question, you were a virgin?" Fox News host Martha MacCallum asked.

"That’s correct," Kavanaugh replied, adding that he did not have sex until "many years after" college.

Anonymous [276] wrote to me:

“That’s correct,” Kavanaugh replied, adding that he did not have sex until “many years after” college.

You notice The Hill reporter did not put “college” in the quote: i.e., Kavanaugh did not in fact say “many years after college.”

His later use of “may years after” seemed to be reiterating his earlier phrase when he said, “I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years thereafter…”

I recorded it and I just rechecked the tape to make sure of this.

MacCallum was trying to pin him down on whether he had had sex in colleg or how many years after college: he wisely left this ambiguous. The Hill reporter did a bad job of reporting, though he (sorta) covered himself by leaving the word “college” out of the quote marks.

If anything good comes out of this, perhaps some people will stop being embarrassed at the idea that a guy can wait to have sex until he truly falls in love and is ready to make a long-term commitment.

Women have been harmed enormously by the currently prevailing attitude. (It hasn’t really been that great for most men, either.)

If he meant "many years" after high school, that would suggest he likely was incel during college, right? Since college is only 4 years. He went to law school, which is 3 years, right after graduating college. That's a total of 7 years of schooling right after high school. "Many years" after high school would likely imply he was incel until his law school years or even after. He graduated law school in 1990 and met his wife in 2001. It seems plausible that he was incel until after he graduated law school. If he was incel until he got married, he would have been in 40 year old virgin territory.

Nah, Kavanaugh came from a much saner time period when "incel" culture didn't exist. I mean, he probably could have attracted some partner to lose his virginity if he really wanted to, but he just didn't feel the need. Part of this probably reflects a high IQ and an ability to delay gratification in general, but it also partly reflects not being bombarded 24/7 with a sex obsessed culture that seems to mix the absolute worst aspects of sexual liberalism and conservatism at once.

(Keep in mind, I was born after the Cold War, so I can't speak from experience. This is just my impression. Older people here are free to correct me.)

>I also wonder how Trump feels about it.

I don't think he cares. Trump seems like a pretty "live and let live" sort of guy when it comes to other people's sex lives, unlike the majority of our ruling and gentry classes. And of course, for the media, this is such a radically out of this world disposition to have in 2018 that it demands immediate investigation.

Trump enjoys womanizing. He enjoys hanging out with and jawing with other womanizers. But whatever else you can say about The Donald, he's secure enough in his own perception of himself that he's not obsessed with mocking men who aren't womanizers.

There was plenty of sex in popular culture in the ‘80s. A small sample from the movies that Kavanaugh and his buddies probably watched on cable if they couldn’t sneak into a theater:

Defensive? Contemptuous, rather. Sexual discipline, self discipline, is the essence of the spiritual life, one of the most essential disciplines to being a man. Only scumbags sleep around. If you have sex with a woman not your wife, you are a debauched idiot, a fool. If you have children with a woman not your wife, or are responsible for a woman having an abortion, you are an utter cretin.

I’m no fan of Kavanaugh’s neo-liberal/con pedigree, and only hope he is confirmed because I utterly despise his enemies. But if what he says about being celibate for so long is true, I admire him for it. Someone should have kept him and that stupid woman accusing him from making such utter fools of themselves as adolescents. His and Blassey Ford’s yearbooks are both totally idiotic. What the adults around them were thinking, I have no idea.

All pleasures demand discipline – the most powerful, like sex and drinking, especially. We’re a degraded and debauched culture because we despise such discipline, until the consequences of our hedonism begin to finally kill us.

You sneer at Kavanagh for his purported celibacy? Look at the white trash and black underclass. Their incontinence with sex and intoxicants is the recipe of their doom, perhaps the catalyst of our collective doom. Every man needs to keep his pecker in his pants until he is ready to suffer for his wife and her children. Otherwise he is no man at all, merely a stupid wretch riven by untrammeled pleasure.

I've been married for close to forty years and have a couple kids -- I'm way beyond being defensive about such things.

No, my point is that for the health of this society we need to get beyond the point where people are ridiculed because they don't recklessly jump into bed with anyone of the opposite sex when they are still too young to (legally) drink alochol.

I have lived through the entire "sexual revolution" from beginning to end: it has not ended well.

It's time to admit that our Victorian great-great-grandparents had more sense when it came to relations between the sexes than the people who dominate our culture today. (And, no, our Victorian ancestors were not "incels": if they had been they could not have become ancestors! But, they did have some sense that long-term commitment had something to do with sex.)

I've seen the fifty-year experiment with your approach to sex.

It failed.

I agree and would add that it is perhaps a cliche in our times to ascribe voluntary celibacy until marriage as being the norm in the West only until Victorian times.

I think this is incorrect. It was pretty much the norm in Western societies until the sexual revolution in the Sixties, and definitely was, for the devout or those brought up to be religious, a large part of the population.

Voluntary celibacy until (usually arranged) marriage continues to be the norm in other societies where religion still holds sway, including in Islamic societies and among the Hindus of the Indian subcontinent. While some single men in those societies do frequent prostitutes, everything I’ve read, or heard about anecdotally, suggests that they are only a minority.

This is just one of those things that is very hard to understand—for those who haven’t seen such a sexual culture. And relatively easy for those who have seen such a culture or moral norm.

Interestingly a lot of the “reader’s choice” comments are explicit about population growth being the core issue. These comments were the only large group of popular comments of which none were “Times’ picks” or whatever those categories are called. So I think the NYT readership is more on board with population reduction (decorated with a lot of empower and educate women feminist dressing) than the comment selectors (is that a job at the NYT?) are willing to let on. The other major groups of popular comments were “its global warming” and “you neolibs ruined the world abroad and at home.” This latter group never, ever shows up if e.g. the Trump administration is considered part of the story in a major way, which is interesting.

Population was mentioned in a couple of picks, albeit not as the main issue.

Having cancelled my subscription over Sarah Jeong, I’m spending way less time at NYT.

Time was when I’d study the comments in detail.

I did notice that one pick comment complained about Gates concerning himself over poor Africans while the people who clean offices in Silicon Valley and his workplace in Seattle can’t possibly afford to live there.

That is true, but it is way less of a problem than through the roof sub-Saharan population growth.

Hasn't he and his billionare friends invested many billions in education/health in SSA? I read somewhere that aid to Africa doubled or tripled under GWB and Blair. Didn't seem to make much of a dent. Even if TFR will continue to trend down, it will do so slowly. Demographic momentum will ensure that we'll get 2 billion easily (from today's 1 billion) and possibly up to 3 if progress will continue to be fairly incremental.

Even if SSA will continue to lag behind, if they manage to achieve per capita income growth of just 1% on average per year over the next half century, then that rising income, plus more people, will ensure much greater amounts of economic migrants.

This doesn't even take into account rising temperature extreme events or increased automatisation, primarily AI, reducing the need for employment in many economies.

The point I'm making is, basically, even if these people got to work the catastrophe is already baked into the cake. It's just a question of how large it will be, and, crucially, how we will manage it.

I’ve read completely unrelated articles or books about how an aid group’s work was undone by huge population increases (if I recall rightly, one example was Ethiopia). Drilling a well doesn’t do much good with high birth rates.

There’s likely many more people “noticing” the phenomenon.

But the political correctness is so strong that only a mega-donor like Bill Gates can even mention it, and even then, it can’t be the main topic or appear in the headline.

Western aid seems to be focused in three categories
-Healthcare
-Education
-Military

Chinese aid by contrast is focused in
-Infrastructure

Healthcare increases both population size, and longevity. Education reduces fertility. Military aid is not delivered with the aim of causing needless wars to cull the population, if anything it gives the local military a higher status which increases corruption. Corruption usually retards economic development, thus keeping fertility higher.

I have doubts as to how much China is interested towards worker safety in the construction projects, injuries and fatalities are certainly higher than in the West. Infrastructure increases economic activity, which reduces fertility. Infrastructure also indebts the receipient country to China, future taxes will be increased to repay this debt. Fertility could further decrease as a result of shouldering a higher tax burden.

Should the West develop an interest in megaprojects like China, two obvious ideas are using the Sahara as a solar power source, and the "green sahara" to increase farmland. I don't think a Malthusian collapse is that plausible, the West currently wastes food at the consumption stage, and Africans waste it at the production stage and through spoilage. Increasing electricty would allow for refrigeration.

The West's leading priority should be to stabilize Libya, its destabilization is the root of the migrant surge. We would also be better off paying North African countries to secure their borders, while ending farm subsidies in the First World. Europeans are too emotionally compromised to secure their borders, Arabs don't share this delusion. Labor intensive crops would be produced at the source of cheap labor, rather than trafficking labor across continents. Stringent feminist standards should be applied to any high fertility country that requests any aid from the West.

Interestingly a lot of the “reader’s choice” comments are explicit about population growth being the core issue. These comments were the only large group of popular comments of which none were “Times’ picks” or whatever those categories are called. So I think the NYT readership is more on board with population reduction (decorated with a lot of empower and educate women feminist dressing) than the comment selectors (is that a job at the NYT?) are willing to let on. The other major groups of popular comments were “its global warming” and “you neolibs ruined the world abroad and at home.” This latter group never, ever shows up if e.g. the Trump administration is considered part of the story in a major way, which is interesting.

Well, isn't that special. What's he done about it in all those decades?

The article gives the impression that world population growth has stabilized, or is close to doing so. Nothing could be further from the truth. And before anyone jumps, consider that the definition of poverty is malleable. So yes, absolute numbers matter. As far as environmental degradation is concerned, it's arguable that poor people are actually better for the planet.

Look up "world population growth chart" on Google and the top results are graphs showing the change in growth rate and a couple showing actual growth, but on a logarithmic scale.

So yes, absolute numbers matter. As far as environmental degradation is concerned, it’s arguable that poor people are actually better for the planet.

Indeed. Population growth could well be stimulated not by absolute poverty, but by the dynamics of growing opportunity at the low of the pyramid, the impression of “betterment”, the mirroring of Western lifestyles, the hope to export one’s siblings as cheap wives, cheap labor, and plugging in to the feed by the parents. The dynamics are willingly ill understood, less talked about.

As far as environmental degradation, poor people have a per capita lower impact definitely. Think of the “poor” deplorables in the Western world as over-dimensioned individually, roaches. Poverty does not seem to impact genetic potential, but incite genetic drift at any minute change of caloric uptake. Palm oil and corn syrup are the criminals of our world.

the definition of poverty is malleable

Poverty as in lack of food and shelter, will depress progeny on the contrary. It will immediately and violently spring back at the first signs of higher caloric uptake. Try at home. Or if you prefer, look at what “baby boom” stands for in the West.

Hasn't he and his billionare friends invested many billions in education/health in SSA? I read somewhere that aid to Africa doubled or tripled under GWB and Blair. Didn't seem to make much of a dent. Even if TFR will continue to trend down, it will do so slowly. Demographic momentum will ensure that we'll get 2 billion easily (from today's 1 billion) and possibly up to 3 if progress will continue to be fairly incremental.

Even if SSA will continue to lag behind, if they manage to achieve per capita income growth of just 1% on average per year over the next half century, then that rising income, plus more people, will ensure much greater amounts of economic migrants.

This doesn't even take into account rising temperature extreme events or increased automatisation, primarily AI, reducing the need for employment in many economies.

The point I'm making is, basically, even if these people got to work the catastrophe is already baked into the cake. It's just a question of how large it will be, and, crucially, how we will manage it.

aid to Africa doubled or tripled under GWB and Blair. Didn’t seem to make much of a dent.

Made a dent, all right. Facilitated even more out-of-control population growth.

Answer: just take a look at what Indonesia, South Korea, Vietnam, China, Thailand, India, Bangladesh, Brazil, Mexico, and Iran-all nations who had 6 kids per woman as recently as a couple of generations ago-have done.

It's very simple: carrot and stick methods. No abstract blather about feminism and assorted SJWism that immediately elicits laughter and contempt from the locals, though obviously educating female children is very important for long-term curtailing of fecundity. But in the short term, you instead make peasant parents realize that in the modern urbanized, vaccinated and Green Revolutioned age, it makes a lot more sense to invest all your resources in two children than spreading them thin with eight. These are simple (not necessarily stupid, but simple) folks: make blindingly obvious the concrete benefits in their lives, concrete benefits that they won't have to wait too long to get and ones they can tangibly appreciate, if they decide to go for quality rather than quantity in their offspring. And then you have it make even more sense with official government. People respond to concrete, practicable incentives. Jack both up to an extreme that they begin to override cultural tendencies. Also, do what Singapore did and constantly press propaganda of happy families with two daughters to avoid Chinese/Indian style mass female infanticides. The last thing the world needs is that replicated on an even more massive scale with Africans.

Anybody who plans carefully and has 1-2 kids gets money and goodies, especially if they have a (relatively) high IQ and select their mate wisely, producing a positive effect on the gene pool. Anybody who agrees to get sterilized gets even more goodies-bonus points if you happen to not have a very high IQ. Anybody who has 7-8 kids is on their own and will be denied access to state services for their later children. Polygamists get cracked down on even harder, being flat out barred from any sort of good job. It's not hard stuff. Basic developmental and tacit "soft eugenics" planning (I think the fanatical Gouldism of Our Betters these days has something to do with a fear of eugenics possibly becoming marginally acceptable to talk about again as memories of the Nazis begin to die) 101. Local religious figures-Christian and Muslim-who try to interfere with government policies are to be dealt with in a discreet (don't want to create martyrs), but firm manner. Africa might be behind the rest of the world for the forseeable future, but it doesn't have to be catastrophically so.

The overwhelming majority of ordinary people in Africa and Europe alike would benefit from this. If the Left really cares about the fate of Africans-and the thing is, they don't really, they care about their own virtue-signalling and rubbing Deplorable faces in the dirt-they would embrace this program immediately. The New Right would be wise to expose this discrepancy for political value.

However... this will only work if the African governments themselves are willing and able to do it. It's definitely possible, contrary to what a lot of people here seem to believe: just look at Rwanda. But it takes the right leadership: again, see Rwanda. This leadership is likely not going to be Jeffersonian democracies, which the State Department still seems to think is normative in the world. So, I have mixed feelings on the likelihood of what I'm describing. I don't think the West peeling off the upper strata of intellgentsia as immigrants is going to be a positive development, but as far as foreign governments applying the right mix of incentives and pressure are concerned, I'm actually not too worried. The baizuo-dominated West might not be willing to do what is needed, but I don't think the Chinese will have any such scruples, and Beijing is the big boy on the continent now. If anything, it'll get even more obvious as eugenics inevitably becomes an open fad in Chinese culture in the coming decades.

No, the real question is whether this'll be in time to avoid some sort of Malthusian disaster and exodus, and if not, what the Europeans realistically plan on doing when the new Volkerwanderung hit Europe's shores. Because if they don't sink a few damn ships early to get the message across that putting your faith in smugglers and reality-disconnected Eurocrats is a (probably fatal) waste of your time and resources, we'll end having a lot more deaths and misery in the long-run for everybody, European and African alike.

I doubt the Chinese care. They’re there for what they can get for themselves.

They’d happily let the excess population starve, and that’s not entirely a criticism.

They also won’t consider taking “refugees” and that’s the right idea. No doubt they get together and laugh about the inability of us idiots to stop letting them in.

There’s enough Chinese in Canada now that they’re starting to see it as home and want to reduce more “refugees” from coming here.

This especially hit home when a Syrian “refugee” sponsored by an upscale downtown mainline Protestant church, raped and murdered a 13-year old Chinese girl.

Overpopulation has been the real bugbear of batty left-wing types for as long as anyone can remember. You scratch the surface of any environmentalist, for instance, and you'll see the overpopulation worrier underneath. But I guess it has to remain sub-rosa in this era, for obvious reasons.

Personally, I've found the fear of overpopulation generally coexists with the urge to round up all the undesirables, put them in a rocket, and launch them into the sun. But that's just been my experience.

I think the African population boom will most likely sort itself out, as long as we don't intervene in any way. So it'll probably not sort itself out.

Overpopulation has been the real bugbear of batty left-wing types for as long as anyone can remember. You scratch the surface of any environmentalist, for instance, and you’ll see the overpopulation worrier underneath.

Look at how the world demographic has evolved and you might say the 20th century was entirely for the browns. Just about all population growth went to non-white populations. Today, getting rid of all whites would just reduce world population from 7 billion to a bit more than 6 billion.

Part of the migration into Europe is presumably due to rapid population growth and overpopulation in the Middle East. For instance, the population of Iraq and Afghanistan exploded (um) while they were being invaded by America, and now it seems the spillover heads for greener pastures. Ours.

Answer: just take a look at what Indonesia, South Korea, Vietnam, China, Thailand, India, Bangladesh, Brazil, Mexico, and Iran-all nations who had 6 kids per woman as recently as a couple of generations ago-have done.

It's very simple: carrot and stick methods. No abstract blather about feminism and assorted SJWism that immediately elicits laughter and contempt from the locals, though obviously educating female children is very important for long-term curtailing of fecundity. But in the short term, you instead make peasant parents realize that in the modern urbanized, vaccinated and Green Revolutioned age, it makes a lot more sense to invest all your resources in two children than spreading them thin with eight. These are simple (not necessarily stupid, but simple) folks: make blindingly obvious the concrete benefits in their lives, concrete benefits that they won't have to wait too long to get and ones they can tangibly appreciate, if they decide to go for quality rather than quantity in their offspring. And then you have it make even more sense with official government. People respond to concrete, practicable incentives. Jack both up to an extreme that they begin to override cultural tendencies. Also, do what Singapore did and constantly press propaganda of happy families with two daughters to avoid Chinese/Indian style mass female infanticides. The last thing the world needs is that replicated on an even more massive scale with Africans.

Anybody who plans carefully and has 1-2 kids gets money and goodies, especially if they have a (relatively) high IQ and select their mate wisely, producing a positive effect on the gene pool. Anybody who agrees to get sterilized gets even more goodies-bonus points if you happen to not have a very high IQ. Anybody who has 7-8 kids is on their own and will be denied access to state services for their later children. Polygamists get cracked down on even harder, being flat out barred from any sort of good job. It's not hard stuff. Basic developmental and tacit "soft eugenics" planning (I think the fanatical Gouldism of Our Betters these days has something to do with a fear of eugenics possibly becoming marginally acceptable to talk about again as memories of the Nazis begin to die) 101. Local religious figures-Christian and Muslim-who try to interfere with government policies are to be dealt with in a discreet (don't want to create martyrs), but firm manner. Africa might be behind the rest of the world for the forseeable future, but it doesn't have to be catastrophically so.

The overwhelming majority of ordinary people in Africa and Europe alike would benefit from this. If the Left really cares about the fate of Africans-and the thing is, they don't really, they care about their own virtue-signalling and rubbing Deplorable faces in the dirt-they would embrace this program immediately. The New Right would be wise to expose this discrepancy for political value.

However... this will only work if the African governments themselves are willing and able to do it. It's definitely possible, contrary to what a lot of people here seem to believe: just look at Rwanda. But it takes the right leadership: again, see Rwanda. This leadership is likely not going to be Jeffersonian democracies, which the State Department still seems to think is normative in the world. So, I have mixed feelings on the likelihood of what I'm describing. I don't think the West peeling off the upper strata of intellgentsia as immigrants is going to be a positive development, but as far as foreign governments applying the right mix of incentives and pressure are concerned, I'm actually not too worried. The baizuo-dominated West might not be willing to do what is needed, but I don't think the Chinese will have any such scruples, and Beijing is the big boy on the continent now. If anything, it'll get even more obvious as eugenics inevitably becomes an open fad in Chinese culture in the coming decades.

No, the real question is whether this'll be in time to avoid some sort of Malthusian disaster and exodus, and if not, what the Europeans realistically plan on doing when the new Volkerwanderung hit Europe's shores. Because if they don't sink a few damn ships early to get the message across that putting your faith in smugglers and reality-disconnected Eurocrats is a (probably fatal) waste of your time and resources, we'll end having a lot more deaths and misery in the long-run for everybody, European and African alike.

The general tone is theoretical, speculative, and far off in the future. But the disaster is already here. Just not on your literal doorstep perhaps. Even if Africans all started having one child each, though, the disaster is already here.

That you name countries such as Indonesia, China, India, Bangladesh, Brazil, and Mexico as success stories indicates–at the very least–that you and I have wildly different notions of what constitutes success.

And that you believe sinking “a few damn ships early” (which is never going to happen anyway) will “get the message across” to billions of starving Africans with nothing to lose? Well, another disconnect; to put it politely.

Compare the GDP per capita of those countries in 1970 or so to today. All have seen a big rise in living standards. Bangladesh's GDP per capita was about 60% of Pakistan's after it became independent in 1971. It implemented a successful population control program unlike PK. Last year it exceeded Pakistan's GDP per capita for the first time.

Buffet is a high functioning idiot savant, I doubt he feels the ethnic kinship. Eating at the same steakhouse and his routines, despite his wealth, are all signs that he is a rainman, albeit one who can pass.

Or maybe it’s because after 50 or so, new experiences are more likely to be annoying than fun?

Defensive? Contemptuous, rather. Sexual discipline, self discipline, is the essence of the spiritual life, one of the most essential disciplines to being a man. Only scumbags sleep around. If you have sex with a woman not your wife, you are a debauched idiot, a fool. If you have children with a woman not your wife, or are responsible for a woman having an abortion, you are an utter cretin.

I'm no fan of Kavanaugh's neo-liberal/con pedigree, and only hope he is confirmed because I utterly despise his enemies. But if what he says about being celibate for so long is true, I admire him for it. Someone should have kept him and that stupid woman accusing him from making such utter fools of themselves as adolescents. His and Blassey Ford's yearbooks are both totally idiotic. What the adults around them were thinking, I have no idea.

All pleasures demand discipline - the most powerful, like sex and drinking, especially. We're a degraded and debauched culture because we despise such discipline, until the consequences of our hedonism begin to finally kill us.

You sneer at Kavanagh for his purported celibacy? Look at the white trash and black underclass. Their incontinence with sex and intoxicants is the recipe of their doom, perhaps the catalyst of our collective doom. Every man needs to keep his pecker in his pants until he is ready to suffer for his wife and her children. Otherwise he is no man at all, merely a stupid wretch riven by untrammeled pleasure.

Wow, I agree in principle to a point, but there are ways of having sex which are guaranteed not to result in procreation. Sex isn’t so very bad, you see. But you do have to use your brain too.

Overpopulation has been the real bugbear of batty left-wing types for as long as anyone can remember. You scratch the surface of any environmentalist, for instance, and you’ll see the overpopulation worrier underneath.

Look at how the world demographic has evolved and you might say the 20th century was entirely for the browns. Just about all population growth went to non-white populations. Today, getting rid of all whites would just reduce world population from 7 billion to a bit more than 6 billion.

Part of the migration into Europe is presumably due to rapid population growth and overpopulation in the Middle East. For instance, the population of Iraq and Afghanistan exploded (um) while they were being invaded by America, and now it seems the spillover heads for greener pastures. Ours.

Nearly eight billion now, btw. They did some more breeding while your back was turned.

“In 1970, there were roughly half as many people in the world as there are now.”

“That’s correct,” Kavanaugh replied, adding that he did not have sex until “many years after” college.

You notice The Hill reporter did not put "college" in the quote: i.e., Kavanaugh did not in fact say “many years after college."

His later use of "may years after" seemed to be reiterating his earlier phrase when he said, “I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years thereafter..."

I recorded it and I just rechecked the tape to make sure of this.

MacCallum was trying to pin him down on whether he had had sex in colleg or how many years after college: he wisely left this ambiguous. The Hill reporter did a bad job of reporting, though he (sorta) covered himself by leaving the word "college" out of the quote marks.

If anything good comes out of this, perhaps some people will stop being embarrassed at the idea that a guy can wait to have sex until he truly falls in love and is ready to make a long-term commitment.

Women have been harmed enormously by the currently prevailing attitude. (It hasn't really been that great for most men, either.)

If anything good comes out of this, perhaps some people will stop being embarrassed at the idea that a guy can wait to have sex until he truly falls in love and is ready to make a long-term commitment

Sadly, the lesson seems to be: virgin or not, if you disagree with the progressivarchy, prepare to get accused.

The general tone is theoretical, speculative, and far off in the future. But the disaster is already here. Just not on your literal doorstep perhaps. Even if Africans all started having one child each, though, the disaster is already here.

That you name countries such as Indonesia, China, India, Bangladesh, Brazil, and Mexico as success stories indicates--at the very least--that you and I have wildly different notions of what constitutes success.

And that you believe sinking "a few damn ships early" (which is never going to happen anyway) will "get the message across" to billions of starving Africans with nothing to lose? Well, another disconnect; to put it politely.

Compare the GDP per capita of those countries in 1970 or so to today. All have seen a big rise in living standards. Bangladesh’s GDP per capita was about 60% of Pakistan’s after it became independent in 1971. It implemented a successful population control program unlike PK. Last year it exceeded Pakistan’s GDP per capita for the first time.

The interior of Africa was difficult for Westerners to explore even before it was reaching Malthusian collapse. Hiram Maxim’s late 19th century machine gun made it possible for Cecil Rhodes to envision a railroad from the Cape to Cairo but it never got built. He was able to establish a fleeting civilization after those Maxim guns domesticated the Matabele warriors in what is now Zimbabwe.

Projections of African populations are just that- projections of current trends divorced from the ability of such populations to sustain themselves. It just won’t be possible for the UN or Western nations to bring in food supplies for hundreds of millions of people even if the money and will were there and the local population can’t produce food at the needed levels. Look at Yemen. The NGO’s brought in food supplies to the port of Houdeidah but can’t get it out to the countryside and Yemen is a coastal state. Short of armed convoys those supplies can’t be moved 50 miles inland and the total population affected is less than 10 million so there is famine and disease. The scale of the African problem will be exponentially greater and what nation is going to provide hundreds of thousands of troops to fight their way into Africa to feed hundreds of millions of unwanted people?

Bill delegated the fertility issue to Melinda. When they started, it was a popular idea that if women were "empowered", they would reduce breeding. That was a colossal fail. Meanwhile ... he had to get Melinda on board.

Now that they can sort of talk about it, we will see.

Fail in the sense of failing to “empower” women, or “empowerment” failing to reduce breeding? Because the reasoning doesn’t look disproven to me regarding Congo-Kinshasa. (Besides, Sub-Saharan fertility *has* been falling – from horribly colossal levels, and slower than in some other places.)

Answer: just take a look at what Indonesia, South Korea, Vietnam, China, Thailand, India, Bangladesh, Brazil, Mexico, and Iran-all nations who had 6 kids per woman as recently as a couple of generations ago-have done.

It's very simple: carrot and stick methods. No abstract blather about feminism and assorted SJWism that immediately elicits laughter and contempt from the locals, though obviously educating female children is very important for long-term curtailing of fecundity. But in the short term, you instead make peasant parents realize that in the modern urbanized, vaccinated and Green Revolutioned age, it makes a lot more sense to invest all your resources in two children than spreading them thin with eight. These are simple (not necessarily stupid, but simple) folks: make blindingly obvious the concrete benefits in their lives, concrete benefits that they won't have to wait too long to get and ones they can tangibly appreciate, if they decide to go for quality rather than quantity in their offspring. And then you have it make even more sense with official government. People respond to concrete, practicable incentives. Jack both up to an extreme that they begin to override cultural tendencies. Also, do what Singapore did and constantly press propaganda of happy families with two daughters to avoid Chinese/Indian style mass female infanticides. The last thing the world needs is that replicated on an even more massive scale with Africans.

Anybody who plans carefully and has 1-2 kids gets money and goodies, especially if they have a (relatively) high IQ and select their mate wisely, producing a positive effect on the gene pool. Anybody who agrees to get sterilized gets even more goodies-bonus points if you happen to not have a very high IQ. Anybody who has 7-8 kids is on their own and will be denied access to state services for their later children. Polygamists get cracked down on even harder, being flat out barred from any sort of good job. It's not hard stuff. Basic developmental and tacit "soft eugenics" planning (I think the fanatical Gouldism of Our Betters these days has something to do with a fear of eugenics possibly becoming marginally acceptable to talk about again as memories of the Nazis begin to die) 101. Local religious figures-Christian and Muslim-who try to interfere with government policies are to be dealt with in a discreet (don't want to create martyrs), but firm manner. Africa might be behind the rest of the world for the forseeable future, but it doesn't have to be catastrophically so.

The overwhelming majority of ordinary people in Africa and Europe alike would benefit from this. If the Left really cares about the fate of Africans-and the thing is, they don't really, they care about their own virtue-signalling and rubbing Deplorable faces in the dirt-they would embrace this program immediately. The New Right would be wise to expose this discrepancy for political value.

However... this will only work if the African governments themselves are willing and able to do it. It's definitely possible, contrary to what a lot of people here seem to believe: just look at Rwanda. But it takes the right leadership: again, see Rwanda. This leadership is likely not going to be Jeffersonian democracies, which the State Department still seems to think is normative in the world. So, I have mixed feelings on the likelihood of what I'm describing. I don't think the West peeling off the upper strata of intellgentsia as immigrants is going to be a positive development, but as far as foreign governments applying the right mix of incentives and pressure are concerned, I'm actually not too worried. The baizuo-dominated West might not be willing to do what is needed, but I don't think the Chinese will have any such scruples, and Beijing is the big boy on the continent now. If anything, it'll get even more obvious as eugenics inevitably becomes an open fad in Chinese culture in the coming decades.

No, the real question is whether this'll be in time to avoid some sort of Malthusian disaster and exodus, and if not, what the Europeans realistically plan on doing when the new Volkerwanderung hit Europe's shores. Because if they don't sink a few damn ships early to get the message across that putting your faith in smugglers and reality-disconnected Eurocrats is a (probably fatal) waste of your time and resources, we'll end having a lot more deaths and misery in the long-run for everybody, European and African alike.

Do you happen to have a good source on Brazil doing any such thing on purpose?

It’s not worrisome at all, people of similar political inclinations to yours used to worry about Muslim reprocution rates too, as you can see they have dwindled. This is inevitable as technological progress and economic prosperity reaches as certain level, not one population on the face of this earth has been able to escape it, Africans will not be any different.

A lot of guys from the UK are going to Uganda , marrying the young women and bringing them back home to blighty. I don't know the full reason for this but one of the main points I noticed is that the men are 55-70 and the ladies 25-35.

He merely said he was a virgin through high school and for a good time after -- that could mean, for example, until his senior year of college.

That hardly justifies a special term ("incel"). Once upon a time, a willingness to defer gratification was considered a virtue. Weren't there some psych experiments that showed that kids willing to get two pieces of candy in an hour vs. one piece right away end up doing better in life?

Yeah, Kavanaugh was captain of the basketball team and played on the football team. Guys like that can get laid if thats all they’re after. If he was celibate it was probably in some part voluntary (holding out for quality), and also some good parenting.

Plus he went to an all-boys high school which makes the story a bit more believable.

Compare the GDP per capita of those countries in 1970 or so to today. All have seen a big rise in living standards. Bangladesh's GDP per capita was about 60% of Pakistan's after it became independent in 1971. It implemented a successful population control program unlike PK. Last year it exceeded Pakistan's GDP per capita for the first time.

Population control is the surest way to economic growth. Unless genes are practically everything, higher parental investment = more productive people = economic growth.

Since genes are verbotten, this should be an easy argument to make.

Maybe it is hard because progressives prefer Westerners foot the bill for non-Westerners’ parental investment?

Still, us paying for their birth control seems like a reasonable compromise.

Africans don't believe in birth control, so that's out...Status for men in Africa is how many kids they have.....And as to the West, only women and crazy people are willing to pay for other people's reproductive habits.

OT, but the infantile BBC World service in pigeon often runs with anti-natal, pro-consumerism, pro-parental investment stories. It is paid for by our foreign office and is therefore admitted propaganda. It seems that someone gets that the future might be better if people who can’t even learn their first language don’t have 8 children each.

Of course all educated Africans I know get it too. So it isn’t exactly hard to get. Unsurprisingly they find the pigeon service a bit patronising. No idea if it is popular?

I’d imagine not. Those who are interested in world news are unlikely to want to read “dat”.

Of Course the Educated Blacks want to go Back to Africa and save their people!

Why is it that educated Africans always want whites to sacrifice themselves for the welfare of others in far off lands where whites are routinely thrown off the land, tortured and murdered, with cries of colonialism. When do all the smart and educated Africans go back home with all their knowledge and do some good in THEIR CONTINENT? For some reason all the educated blacks keep putting a burden on western nations and peoples, sporting their bling rather than doing something positive for their peoples who suffer so much on their continent. Why do Africans never want to raise up their own on their continent, it's always "us" should pay for "their" birthcontrol? They say "their" like they aren't the same people.

Answer: just take a look at what Indonesia, South Korea, Vietnam, China, Thailand, India, Bangladesh, Brazil, Mexico, and Iran-all nations who had 6 kids per woman as recently as a couple of generations ago-have done.

It's very simple: carrot and stick methods. No abstract blather about feminism and assorted SJWism that immediately elicits laughter and contempt from the locals, though obviously educating female children is very important for long-term curtailing of fecundity. But in the short term, you instead make peasant parents realize that in the modern urbanized, vaccinated and Green Revolutioned age, it makes a lot more sense to invest all your resources in two children than spreading them thin with eight. These are simple (not necessarily stupid, but simple) folks: make blindingly obvious the concrete benefits in their lives, concrete benefits that they won't have to wait too long to get and ones they can tangibly appreciate, if they decide to go for quality rather than quantity in their offspring. And then you have it make even more sense with official government. People respond to concrete, practicable incentives. Jack both up to an extreme that they begin to override cultural tendencies. Also, do what Singapore did and constantly press propaganda of happy families with two daughters to avoid Chinese/Indian style mass female infanticides. The last thing the world needs is that replicated on an even more massive scale with Africans.

Anybody who plans carefully and has 1-2 kids gets money and goodies, especially if they have a (relatively) high IQ and select their mate wisely, producing a positive effect on the gene pool. Anybody who agrees to get sterilized gets even more goodies-bonus points if you happen to not have a very high IQ. Anybody who has 7-8 kids is on their own and will be denied access to state services for their later children. Polygamists get cracked down on even harder, being flat out barred from any sort of good job. It's not hard stuff. Basic developmental and tacit "soft eugenics" planning (I think the fanatical Gouldism of Our Betters these days has something to do with a fear of eugenics possibly becoming marginally acceptable to talk about again as memories of the Nazis begin to die) 101. Local religious figures-Christian and Muslim-who try to interfere with government policies are to be dealt with in a discreet (don't want to create martyrs), but firm manner. Africa might be behind the rest of the world for the forseeable future, but it doesn't have to be catastrophically so.

The overwhelming majority of ordinary people in Africa and Europe alike would benefit from this. If the Left really cares about the fate of Africans-and the thing is, they don't really, they care about their own virtue-signalling and rubbing Deplorable faces in the dirt-they would embrace this program immediately. The New Right would be wise to expose this discrepancy for political value.

However... this will only work if the African governments themselves are willing and able to do it. It's definitely possible, contrary to what a lot of people here seem to believe: just look at Rwanda. But it takes the right leadership: again, see Rwanda. This leadership is likely not going to be Jeffersonian democracies, which the State Department still seems to think is normative in the world. So, I have mixed feelings on the likelihood of what I'm describing. I don't think the West peeling off the upper strata of intellgentsia as immigrants is going to be a positive development, but as far as foreign governments applying the right mix of incentives and pressure are concerned, I'm actually not too worried. The baizuo-dominated West might not be willing to do what is needed, but I don't think the Chinese will have any such scruples, and Beijing is the big boy on the continent now. If anything, it'll get even more obvious as eugenics inevitably becomes an open fad in Chinese culture in the coming decades.

No, the real question is whether this'll be in time to avoid some sort of Malthusian disaster and exodus, and if not, what the Europeans realistically plan on doing when the new Volkerwanderung hit Europe's shores. Because if they don't sink a few damn ships early to get the message across that putting your faith in smugglers and reality-disconnected Eurocrats is a (probably fatal) waste of your time and resources, we'll end having a lot more deaths and misery in the long-run for everybody, European and African alike.

“No, the real question is whether this’ll be in time to avoid some sort of Malthusian disaster and exodus, and if not, what the Europeans realistically plan on doing when the new Volkerwanderung hit Europe’s shores. Because if they don’t sink a few damn ships early to get the message across that putting your faith in smugglers and reality-disconnected Eurocrats is a (probably fatal) waste of your time and resources, we’ll end having a lot more deaths and misery in the long-run for everybody, European and African alike.”

You have a better chance of IDF’s Air Force mistaking boats filled with migrants for an Egyptian navy ship, like they said they did in 1967.

The interior of Africa was difficult for Westerners to explore even before it was reaching Malthusian collapse. Hiram Maxim's late 19th century machine gun made it possible for Cecil Rhodes to envision a railroad from the Cape to Cairo but it never got built. He was able to establish a fleeting civilization after those Maxim guns domesticated the Matabele warriors in what is now Zimbabwe.

Projections of African populations are just that- projections of current trends divorced from the ability of such populations to sustain themselves. It just won't be possible for the UN or Western nations to bring in food supplies for hundreds of millions of people even if the money and will were there and the local population can't produce food at the needed levels. Look at Yemen. The NGO's brought in food supplies to the port of Houdeidah but can't get it out to the countryside and Yemen is a coastal state. Short of armed convoys those supplies can't be moved 50 miles inland and the total population affected is less than 10 million so there is famine and disease. The scale of the African problem will be exponentially greater and what nation is going to provide hundreds of thousands of troops to fight their way into Africa to feed hundreds of millions of unwanted people?

Limerick fans: I posted this one Saturday night regarding “Jennifer Weiner,” but it was delayed so long I’m sure nobody saw it. (Comment #76.) http://www.unz.com/isteve/jennifer-weiner-i-want-to-burn-the-frat-house-of-america-to-the-ground/#comment-2532659

The interior of Africa was difficult for Westerners to explore even before it was reaching Malthusian collapse. Hiram Maxim's late 19th century machine gun made it possible for Cecil Rhodes to envision a railroad from the Cape to Cairo but it never got built. He was able to establish a fleeting civilization after those Maxim guns domesticated the Matabele warriors in what is now Zimbabwe.

Projections of African populations are just that- projections of current trends divorced from the ability of such populations to sustain themselves. It just won't be possible for the UN or Western nations to bring in food supplies for hundreds of millions of people even if the money and will were there and the local population can't produce food at the needed levels. Look at Yemen. The NGO's brought in food supplies to the port of Houdeidah but can't get it out to the countryside and Yemen is a coastal state. Short of armed convoys those supplies can't be moved 50 miles inland and the total population affected is less than 10 million so there is famine and disease. The scale of the African problem will be exponentially greater and what nation is going to provide hundreds of thousands of troops to fight their way into Africa to feed hundreds of millions of unwanted people?

Probably ours. Remember, Obama’s DOD establishes an African command in the US military.

Now I expect a good numbers of articles by The usual suspects explaining to us that the real tragedy is that Africa’s population is not growing fast enough. Negro shortages are bad for the global economy.

Thee more everyone worries about the populations of Africa the bigger it gets. Then they move them out of Africa and around the world the world so the population of Africa can grow some more. Bill Gates solutions are un-natural non-solutions. Typical leftist where the whole world is beneath him and he has all the solutions to fix. Let Africans take care of themselves, they survived for thousands of years without Bill Gates meddling.

Based on current trends, a growing proportion of babies will be born in places where adults have to devote most of their resources to survival, leaving very little to invest in their families,

Even if black Africans did "invest" more resources into their offspring, what would that really accomplish? They would still have 70-something IQ's.

Exactly, and not just in Africa. The “investment” in Head Start and other pre-K stuff is completely wasted. Replacing the babies of the ‘hood with White babies from the dumbest state in the Union would be a massive improvement, and it would stick.

Remember, Bill Gates and Shelly Adelson and Warren Buffett wrote an article for a newspaper demanding open borders mass immigration for the United States after shyster boy Cantor got his money-grubbing ass kicked out of the US House by Dave Brat.

Bill Gates is a horrible globalizer plutocrat who wants to flood all European Christian nations with his surplus Sub-Saharan Africans.

“That’s correct,” Kavanaugh replied, adding that he did not have sex until “many years after” college.

You notice The Hill reporter did not put "college" in the quote: i.e., Kavanaugh did not in fact say “many years after college."

His later use of "may years after" seemed to be reiterating his earlier phrase when he said, “I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years thereafter..."

I recorded it and I just rechecked the tape to make sure of this.

MacCallum was trying to pin him down on whether he had had sex in colleg or how many years after college: he wisely left this ambiguous. The Hill reporter did a bad job of reporting, though he (sorta) covered himself by leaving the word "college" out of the quote marks.

If anything good comes out of this, perhaps some people will stop being embarrassed at the idea that a guy can wait to have sex until he truly falls in love and is ready to make a long-term commitment.

Women have been harmed enormously by the currently prevailing attitude. (It hasn't really been that great for most men, either.)

If he meant “many years” after high school, that would suggest he likely was incel during college, right? Since college is only 4 years. He went to law school, which is 3 years, right after graduating college. That’s a total of 7 years of schooling right after high school. “Many years” after high school would likely imply he was incel until his law school years or even after. He graduated law school in 1990 and met his wife in 2001. It seems plausible that he was incel until after he graduated law school. If he was incel until he got married, he would have been in 40 year old virgin territory.

If he meant “many years” after high school, that would suggest he likely was incel during college, right? Since college is only 4 years. He went to law school, which is 3 years, right after graduating college. That’s a total of 7 years of schooling right after high school. “Many years” after high school would likely imply he was incel until his law school years or even after.

Were three years "many years"? Five years? Twenty years?

He intentionally left it vague, which seems the dignified way to deal with the matter. Whether he was promiscuous at the time referred to in the accusations matters. Beyond that, well, it's not really your or my business, is it?

Anonymous also wrote:

If he was incel until he got married, he would have been in 40 year old virgin territory.

Which, I suppose, would prove he has a lot more self-discipline that you do!

In any case, we don't know, and it is none of our business. I don't know whether or not Kavanaugh will be a good Supreme Court justice. But, on this specific matter, he wisely showed judicial restraint.

OT, but the infantile BBC World service in pigeon often runs with anti-natal, pro-consumerism, pro-parental investment stories. It is paid for by our foreign office and is therefore admitted propaganda. It seems that someone gets that the future might be better if people who can't even learn their first language don't have 8 children each.

Of course all educated Africans I know get it too. So it isn't exactly hard to get. Unsurprisingly they find the pigeon service a bit patronising. No idea if it is popular?

I'd imagine not. Those who are interested in world news are unlikely to want to read "dat".

Of Course the Educated Blacks want to go Back to Africa and save their people!

Why is it that educated Africans always want whites to sacrifice themselves for the welfare of others in far off lands where whites are routinely thrown off the land, tortured and murdered, with cries of colonialism. When do all the smart and educated Africans go back home with all their knowledge and do some good in THEIR CONTINENT? For some reason all the educated blacks keep putting a burden on western nations and peoples, sporting their bling rather than doing something positive for their peoples who suffer so much on their continent. Why do Africans never want to raise up their own on their continent, it’s always “us” should pay for “their” birthcontrol? They say “their” like they aren’t the same people.

Defensive? Contemptuous, rather. Sexual discipline, self discipline, is the essence of the spiritual life, one of the most essential disciplines to being a man. Only scumbags sleep around. If you have sex with a woman not your wife, you are a debauched idiot, a fool. If you have children with a woman not your wife, or are responsible for a woman having an abortion, you are an utter cretin.

I'm no fan of Kavanaugh's neo-liberal/con pedigree, and only hope he is confirmed because I utterly despise his enemies. But if what he says about being celibate for so long is true, I admire him for it. Someone should have kept him and that stupid woman accusing him from making such utter fools of themselves as adolescents. His and Blassey Ford's yearbooks are both totally idiotic. What the adults around them were thinking, I have no idea.

All pleasures demand discipline - the most powerful, like sex and drinking, especially. We're a degraded and debauched culture because we despise such discipline, until the consequences of our hedonism begin to finally kill us.

You sneer at Kavanagh for his purported celibacy? Look at the white trash and black underclass. Their incontinence with sex and intoxicants is the recipe of their doom, perhaps the catalyst of our collective doom. Every man needs to keep his pecker in his pants until he is ready to suffer for his wife and her children. Otherwise he is no man at all, merely a stupid wretch riven by untrammeled pleasure.

Wow, and I thought I was conservative and judgmental. Preach it brother!

A lot of guys from the UK are going to Uganda , marrying the young women and bringing them back home to blighty. I don't know the full reason for this but one of the main points I noticed is that the men are 55-70 and the ladies 25-35.

Not noticed it myself, but I live a sheltered life. I think I’ve met a few middle-aged/elderly white guys married to Thai or Filipino women who they met ‘out there’ but none with an African missus.

Population was mentioned in a couple of picks, albeit not as the main issue.

Having cancelled my subscription over Sarah Jeong, I’m spending way less time at NYT.

Time was when I’d study the comments in detail.

I did notice that one pick comment complained about Gates concerning himself over poor Africans while the people who clean offices in Silicon Valley and his workplace in Seattle can’t possibly afford to live there.

That is true, but it is way less of a problem than through the roof sub-Saharan population growth.

Having cancelled my subscription over Sarah Jeong, I’m spending way less time at NYT.

Michelle Goldberg was the last straw for me. They lost a 30 year subscriber but they apparently don’t care.

They did ask me why I was cancelling, and they had a script ready for Jeong cancels, something about apologizing on her behalf.

But they don’t care about Jeong cancels either. I’m still incredulous that they hired her.

But I’m even more shocked by what must be a huge pool of white cucks.

I’m most angry at them. They’re a real danger, prepared to fight against their own interests, apparently not realizing they’ll be next to go.

It happens in all these revolutionary cases. The one I’ve read the most is Iran. Khomeini encouraged the Communists to risk and sometimes lose their lives fighting against the Shah. As soon as Khomeini was firmly in power, he turned on them. Many were killed, other endured long prison sentences.

The so-called “Demographic Transition” in which the elites invest all their hopes of population growth containment, has an insidious side-effect:

Dysgenics

It is dysgenic because it relies on the economy outbidding the family for young women. While this lowers Total Fertility Rate — and powerfully so — it removes from the very next generation, the characteristics most demanded by the economy. So even if one can overcome the hysteria about “too many black people”, one must — to be a worthy elite — be realistic about the consequent destruction of the gene pool.

Of course, thanks largely to The Culture of Critique, none of the elite are worthy. They, and their high priests of dysgenics, are the real problem.

I think Gates is trying to fight the good fight here, but the intellectual climate is so hysterical these days that even if you have $80 billion or whatever Gates has, you have to tiptoe around reality.

Overpopulation has been the real bugbear of batty left-wing types for as long as anyone can remember. You scratch the surface of any environmentalist, for instance, and you'll see the overpopulation worrier underneath. But I guess it has to remain sub-rosa in this era, for obvious reasons.

Personally, I've found the fear of overpopulation generally coexists with the urge to round up all the undesirables, put them in a rocket, and launch them into the sun. But that's just been my experience.

I think the African population boom will most likely sort itself out, as long as we don't intervene in any way. So it'll probably not sort itself out.

Yes, if we ignore Africa, the population boom will very definitely sort itself out…The West created this mess by subsidizing Africa to the tune of several trillions, and now there isn’t one African country that can feed itself….
But in reality, Africa’s problems are not our problems unless we choose to import them here, or export food to there…Neither of which are viable long term.

A lot of guys from the UK are going to Uganda , marrying the young women and bringing them back home to blighty. I don't know the full reason for this but one of the main points I noticed is that the men are 55-70 and the ladies 25-35.

Population control is the surest way to economic growth. Unless genes are practically everything, higher parental investment = more productive people = economic growth.

Since genes are verbotten, this should be an easy argument to make.

Maybe it is hard because progressives prefer Westerners foot the bill for non-Westerners' parental investment?

Still, us paying for their birth control seems like a reasonable compromise.

Africans don’t believe in birth control, so that’s out…Status for men in Africa is how many kids they have…..And as to the West, only women and crazy people are willing to pay for other people’s reproductive habits.

China and India(and much of the Third World) saw spectacular population growth in the past, but it didn’t matter because the West didn’t worship Diversity and didn’t take in those people.

So, who cares if black population explodes IN Africa. The problem is the Diversity Cult in the West.

There are two kinds of democracies: National Democracy and Liberal Democracy.

In a national democracy, democracy serves the people and culture of a nation. Israel and Hungary are national democracies. (The differences is Hungary is a national democracy that respects other national democracies whereas Israel is a national democracy that subverts other national democracies. Zionists believe Jews and ONLY Jews have the right of National Democracy. All others must become liberal democracies.)

In a liberal democracy, abstract ideology of ‘liberalism’ is the highest good. People exist to serve the Idea than the Idea exists to serve the People.

[MORE]

According a National Democrat, nation trumps democracy. So, if a Zionist had to choose between Israel turning autocratic and remaining Jewish AND Israel turning majority Arab(or African) and remaining democratic, he will opt for the former. Israel as a Jewish State trumps all other considerations, even democracy. Democracy is merely a political tool to serve the Jewish State. If democracy is seen as undermining the Jewish State and paving the way for Arab or African majority state, Jews will opt for something else.
Same in Hungary. Majority of Hungarians will prefer a dictatorship that allows Hungary to remain Hungarian than democracy that paves the way for Arab or African takeover(via Soros and his ilk). Now, National Democrats prefer to serve nationalism via democratic means. But democracy serves the people and culture, not vice versa.

In contrast, the highest good in a liberal democracy is the people serving the ideals of free elections and individual rights. (Given the power dynamics of the Current West, ‘liberal democracy’ has become just another name for Rule by Globalist Oligarchy. Even though liberal democracies have elections, most of the political candidates are worthless cucks like Macron, May, and Merkel. They serve the globo-oligarchs than serve and defend their own peoples who themselves have been brainwashed by PC and Pop Culture.)

Social Democracy’s highest good is distribution of goods and services for all the people. Material ‘Justice’ trumps all.

Now, liberal democracy or social democracy might not be so harmful to a nation IF the nation weren’t infected with the virus of Diversity Cult. Sweden as a social democracy worked pretty well when it was about Swedes in Sweden. But when it caught the Diversity Virus, social democratic ideals were extended to non-Swedes, and they just kept on coming for the gibs.
And liberal democracy worked well in UK, France, and Germany after WWII prior to the rise of Diversity Cult. It was mostly about preserving individual rights for national citizens.
So, it was a defacto National Democracy in practice even if not formulated as such in principle. US was also a defacto National Democracy until the 1965 Immigration Act even if not explicitly founded as such. It was about white majority prioritizing the US as an extension of European Civilization.

But because they weren’t explicitly National Democracies by Constitution, they were vulnerable to the manipulations by globalists. Since they were Liberal Democracies in principle, globalists could point to its ‘national’ aspect as ‘racist’ and ‘exclusive’ and ‘xenophobic’.
After all, a liberal democracy is supposed to be about individuals and color-blindness, not about ethnos, culture, and territory. Thus, liberal democracies should be ‘open’. British and French citizens should think of themselves as ‘citizens of the world’, and they should welcome masses of foreigners as fellow citizens.

The lesson is that unless a nation is explicitly formulated as a national democracy committed to the preservation of a certain people and culture, it will be vulnerable to globalist assault(and by Zionists who insist on National Democracy for Israel but Liberal Democracy for all other nations; National Democracies are impenetrable by foreign elites, whereas Liberal Democracies expose themselves to foreign, often Jewish, takeover. National Democracy is like a closed Spartan Phalanx. Liberal Democracy is like a Open Phalanx where the warriors no longer stand united as a group but stand around as individuals without the glue of unity).
Neither liberal democracy nor social democracy put people and culture at the center. One puts individual rights at center, and the other puts material rights at the center. There is really nothing about Our people, Our history, Our culture, and Our homeland. Israel is a national democracy and thereby able to defend its people and culture. But as Zionists are nationalists at home and globalists abroad, they work with Jewish operatives in other nations to denounce Hungary and Poland. (Netanyahu pretends to side with Hungary against Soros, but he is a total snake not to be trusted.)

In the end, a people must ask what is most important. An abstract political ideology/principle OR the tangible facts of a people, culture, history, and land.

A Polish National Democrat will forgo democracy if doing so will save Poland as people and culture. He prefers autocratic Poland that remains Polish to a democratic Poland that is taken over by Africans and Arabs and is ruled by Jewish globalists.
In contrast, a Polish Liberal Democrat will forgo Poland as homeland for Polish people & culture IF democracy in Poland can be secured by massive invasions by Arabs and Africans. For him, ideology trumps identity. He prefers a majority non-Polish Poland that is democratic to a Poland as homeland for Poles that is undemocratic.

Now, democracy is a pretty good thing, but ideology is merely a political tool. It cannot be the core of a people and culture. A nation is much deeper than any set of ideologies. Poland was still Poland under communist tyranny because a nation is more than what political system it has.

But a flaky liberal democrat defines the core of his nation by ‘individual rights’. By such logic, if Poland defines itself primarily as a liberal democracy, it ceases to be Poland if it doesn’t stick with the globalist demands of what ‘liberal democratic’ values are in the Current Year(that says ‘Western Values’ are about welcoming 300 million black Africans to Europe). In order for Poland to remain Polish in the mind of a Polish Liberal Democrat, ‘liberal values’ must be promoted EVEN IF it leads to Poland becoming an Afro-Arabian nation. As far as he is concerned, even a non-Polish-majority Poland is Polish because of its ‘liberal values’.

"Social democracy" and "liberal democracy" can only be transient phases in a country's history. They contain the seeds of their own destruction. Most white countries are like this. They pretend all people who arrive within their borders are the same and deserve equal status with the indigenous population. As the latter are gradually replaced, ethnic loyalty will reassert itself among the various non-white groups as they have to compete more fiercely with each other for the dwindling resources.

My impression has long been that Bill Gates is, deep down, the Protestant guy appalled by Irish Catholic fecundity in Monty Python’s Meaning of Life.

He's also the frequent bridge partner of Warren Buffett, who's been interested in the subject for decades.

Forget golf. The ambitious college kid should take up bridge.

My husband played bridge against Gates at the Omaha tournament a few years ago. I think technically it is in Council Bluffs. Gates’s partner was a pro player and my husband played with his mom. My son also plays and worked as a caddy at the tournament. With grandma, our two sons and my husband, there are enough for a game when they get together. Now if we could just get the girl cousins on board…

A lot of guys from the UK are going to Uganda , marrying the young women and bringing them back home to blighty. I don't know the full reason for this but one of the main points I noticed is that the men are 55-70 and the ladies 25-35.

I’ve met some black Africans and some white Europeans and almost without exception, I’ll take the black Africans. They didn’t meddle in our election, they didn’t draw us into 2 world wars (300k dead in Europe), they don’t demand that we defend them. If there’s a bigger loaded gun pointed at America than London, Paris and Berlin, I’d like to see it. Their inability to procreate is wonderful.

Why don't you actually put your money where your mouth is, and move to Lagos or Kinshasa or Johannesburg or Accra - or even if you're not that wimpy - why not move to Detroit, then south side of Chicago, Oakland, Camden, Newark etc etc.

lol. Black Africans and Europeans ? You must get out alot. Have I got a timeshare for you. Downtown Lagos. Full of vibrant diversity and black africans. No defense demands or meddle stuff. These guys love white women too !

Buffet is a high functioning idiot savant, I doubt he feels the ethnic kinship. Eating at the same steakhouse and his routines, despite his wealth, are all signs that he is a rainman, albeit one who can pass.

I doubt he feels the ethnic kinship.

Some years ago–in the last century–Buffet had informed his three children that they were getting nothing from his estate–he’d sufficiently gifted to/supported them while alive. (Buffet apparently gave each of his children ~$1 billion in Berkshire Hathaway stock with which to pursue their own independent philanthropic activities.)

Buffet seems to have softened with age as son Howard is now considerably involved in Berkshire Hathaway, with Warren indicating he’d like Howard to succeed him as non-executive chairman upon his own death.

I've met some black Africans and some white Europeans and almost without exception, I'll take the black Africans. They didn't meddle in our election, they didn't draw us into 2 world wars (300k dead in Europe), they don't demand that we defend them. If there's a bigger loaded gun pointed at America than London, Paris and Berlin, I'd like to see it. Their inability to procreate is wonderful.

Why don’t you actually put your money where your mouth is, and move to Lagos or Kinshasa or Johannesburg or Accra – or even if you’re not that wimpy – why not move to Detroit, then south side of Chicago, Oakland, Camden, Newark etc etc.

Why would I move? I never said I didn't like white-run societies and white technology and white rule of law. That doesn't mean I think Europeans mean us well. They don't. They want us dead, end of story. We need to wake up and realize that.

China and India(and much of the Third World) saw spectacular population growth in the past, but it didn't matter because the West didn't worship Diversity and didn't take in those people.

So, who cares if black population explodes IN Africa. The problem is the Diversity Cult in the West.

There are two kinds of democracies: National Democracy and Liberal Democracy.

In a national democracy, democracy serves the people and culture of a nation. Israel and Hungary are national democracies. (The differences is Hungary is a national democracy that respects other national democracies whereas Israel is a national democracy that subverts other national democracies. Zionists believe Jews and ONLY Jews have the right of National Democracy. All others must become liberal democracies.)

In a liberal democracy, abstract ideology of 'liberalism' is the highest good. People exist to serve the Idea than the Idea exists to serve the People.

According a National Democrat, nation trumps democracy. So, if a Zionist had to choose between Israel turning autocratic and remaining Jewish AND Israel turning majority Arab(or African) and remaining democratic, he will opt for the former. Israel as a Jewish State trumps all other considerations, even democracy. Democracy is merely a political tool to serve the Jewish State. If democracy is seen as undermining the Jewish State and paving the way for Arab or African majority state, Jews will opt for something else.
Same in Hungary. Majority of Hungarians will prefer a dictatorship that allows Hungary to remain Hungarian than democracy that paves the way for Arab or African takeover(via Soros and his ilk). Now, National Democrats prefer to serve nationalism via democratic means. But democracy serves the people and culture, not vice versa.

In contrast, the highest good in a liberal democracy is the people serving the ideals of free elections and individual rights. (Given the power dynamics of the Current West, 'liberal democracy' has become just another name for Rule by Globalist Oligarchy. Even though liberal democracies have elections, most of the political candidates are worthless cucks like Macron, May, and Merkel. They serve the globo-oligarchs than serve and defend their own peoples who themselves have been brainwashed by PC and Pop Culture.)

Social Democracy's highest good is distribution of goods and services for all the people. Material 'Justice' trumps all.

Now, liberal democracy or social democracy might not be so harmful to a nation IF the nation weren't infected with the virus of Diversity Cult. Sweden as a social democracy worked pretty well when it was about Swedes in Sweden. But when it caught the Diversity Virus, social democratic ideals were extended to non-Swedes, and they just kept on coming for the gibs.
And liberal democracy worked well in UK, France, and Germany after WWII prior to the rise of Diversity Cult. It was mostly about preserving individual rights for national citizens.
So, it was a defacto National Democracy in practice even if not formulated as such in principle. US was also a defacto National Democracy until the 1965 Immigration Act even if not explicitly founded as such. It was about white majority prioritizing the US as an extension of European Civilization.

But because they weren't explicitly National Democracies by Constitution, they were vulnerable to the manipulations by globalists. Since they were Liberal Democracies in principle, globalists could point to its 'national' aspect as 'racist' and 'exclusive' and 'xenophobic'.
After all, a liberal democracy is supposed to be about individuals and color-blindness, not about ethnos, culture, and territory. Thus, liberal democracies should be 'open'. British and French citizens should think of themselves as 'citizens of the world', and they should welcome masses of foreigners as fellow citizens.

The lesson is that unless a nation is explicitly formulated as a national democracy committed to the preservation of a certain people and culture, it will be vulnerable to globalist assault(and by Zionists who insist on National Democracy for Israel but Liberal Democracy for all other nations; National Democracies are impenetrable by foreign elites, whereas Liberal Democracies expose themselves to foreign, often Jewish, takeover. National Democracy is like a closed Spartan Phalanx. Liberal Democracy is like a Open Phalanx where the warriors no longer stand united as a group but stand around as individuals without the glue of unity).
Neither liberal democracy nor social democracy put people and culture at the center. One puts individual rights at center, and the other puts material rights at the center. There is really nothing about Our people, Our history, Our culture, and Our homeland. Israel is a national democracy and thereby able to defend its people and culture. But as Zionists are nationalists at home and globalists abroad, they work with Jewish operatives in other nations to denounce Hungary and Poland. (Netanyahu pretends to side with Hungary against Soros, but he is a total snake not to be trusted.)

In the end, a people must ask what is most important. An abstract political ideology/principle OR the tangible facts of a people, culture, history, and land.

A Polish National Democrat will forgo democracy if doing so will save Poland as people and culture. He prefers autocratic Poland that remains Polish to a democratic Poland that is taken over by Africans and Arabs and is ruled by Jewish globalists.
In contrast, a Polish Liberal Democrat will forgo Poland as homeland for Polish people & culture IF democracy in Poland can be secured by massive invasions by Arabs and Africans. For him, ideology trumps identity. He prefers a majority non-Polish Poland that is democratic to a Poland as homeland for Poles that is undemocratic.

Now, democracy is a pretty good thing, but ideology is merely a political tool. It cannot be the core of a people and culture. A nation is much deeper than any set of ideologies. Poland was still Poland under communist tyranny because a nation is more than what political system it has.

But a flaky liberal democrat defines the core of his nation by 'individual rights'. By such logic, if Poland defines itself primarily as a liberal democracy, it ceases to be Poland if it doesn't stick with the globalist demands of what 'liberal democratic' values are in the Current Year(that says 'Western Values' are about welcoming 300 million black Africans to Europe). In order for Poland to remain Polish in the mind of a Polish Liberal Democrat, 'liberal values' must be promoted EVEN IF it leads to Poland becoming an Afro-Arabian nation. As far as he is concerned, even a non-Polish-majority Poland is Polish because of its 'liberal values'.

“Social democracy” and “liberal democracy” can only be transient phases in a country’s history. They contain the seeds of their own destruction. Most white countries are like this. They pretend all people who arrive within their borders are the same and deserve equal status with the indigenous population. As the latter are gradually replaced, ethnic loyalty will reassert itself among the various non-white groups as they have to compete more fiercely with each other for the dwindling resources.

Why don't you actually put your money where your mouth is, and move to Lagos or Kinshasa or Johannesburg or Accra - or even if you're not that wimpy - why not move to Detroit, then south side of Chicago, Oakland, Camden, Newark etc etc.

Thought not.

Why would I move? I never said I didn’t like white-run societies and white technology and white rule of law. That doesn’t mean I think Europeans mean us well. They don’t. They want us dead, end of story. We need to wake up and realize that.

If anyone 'wants us dead', (anyway I'm fairly convinced you're not of white ethnicity), it's that certain section of the US population that boasts an 'interracial differential murder coefficient' of at least a factor of eight.

Nah, Kavanaugh came from a much saner time period when "incel" culture didn't exist. I mean, he probably could have attracted some partner to lose his virginity if he really wanted to, but he just didn't feel the need. Part of this probably reflects a high IQ and an ability to delay gratification in general, but it also partly reflects not being bombarded 24/7 with a sex obsessed culture that seems to mix the absolute worst aspects of sexual liberalism and conservatism at once.

(Keep in mind, I was born after the Cold War, so I can't speak from experience. This is just my impression. Older people here are free to correct me.)

>I also wonder how Trump feels about it.

I don't think he cares. Trump seems like a pretty "live and let live" sort of guy when it comes to other people's sex lives, unlike the majority of our ruling and gentry classes. And of course, for the media, this is such a radically out of this world disposition to have in 2018 that it demands immediate investigation.

Trump enjoys womanizing. He enjoys hanging out with and jawing with other womanizers. But whatever else you can say about The Donald, he's secure enough in his own perception of himself that he's not obsessed with mocking men who aren't womanizers.

Are you kidding? He was born in 65. That means he was a young man in the 1980s when we had Porkys, Madonna, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, porn on VHS tapes, and sex/nudity in every slasher flick.

I think most men, although not a vast majority, are virgins throughout high school, and lose it soon after. Either in college or in the work world. He was just like everyone else.

If the girls had known he would eventually become a supreme court nominee however….

There will be no “gentle collapsing of every surface” when Bill Gates’s AFRICAN OVERLOAD bursts out of its dark continent confines. It will be the violent and explosive destruction of European Christian civilization.

The Bill Gates AFRICAN OVERLOAD has already been discharging its bitter Black hordes for decades now.

Bill Gates went to Africa in 1993 and that was when he launched his AFRICAN OVERLOAD plot to destroy the United States and all other European Christian nations.

The last 5 years have seen the treasonous rat ruling classes in Europe open the flooodgates to onrushing AFRICAN OVERLOAD.

They pretend all people who arrive within their borders are the same and deserve equal status with the indigenous population.

Pretend to us, not to themselves. They know the new arrivals are weaker in many ways. Since the social democratic parties trade on alleviating weaknesses, it is inherently in their interest to invite the Other in.

To the social democrat, the natives’ capabilities are a bug, not a feature.

Buffet is a high functioning idiot savant, I doubt he feels the ethnic kinship. Eating at the same steakhouse and his routines, despite his wealth, are all signs that he is a rainman, albeit one who can pass.

Buffet is a high functioning idiot savant, I doubt he feels the ethnic kinship. Eating at the same steakhouse and his routines, despite his wealth, are all signs that he is a rainman, albeit one who can pass.

Sam's wife was quite liberal, she made significant donations to Planned Parenthood. Her liberalism did not extend to paying estate taxes, the Waltons created whole new case law via their attempts to dodge the taxman.

Sam enjoyed his reputation as a bird hunter, but he was also a college graduate (much less common in the 1940s) and an avid squash/tennis player. The latter aren't your typical rural rube activities.

One of his sons was a Vietnam veteran, so the family did show higher levels of patriotism than most elites at the time and since. (Neither a Romney nor a Trump can say that) But at the contrary, two of his other sons didn't serve despite being of age.

His campaign to "Buy American" was clearly a stunt, if not a gasp of senility. The company stopped it once he was dead.

Having cancelled my subscription over Sarah Jeong, I’m spending way less time at NYT.

Michelle Goldberg was the last straw for me. They lost a 30 year subscriber but they apparently don't care.

They did ask me why I was cancelling, and they had a script ready for Jeong cancels, something about apologizing on her behalf.

But they don’t care about Jeong cancels either. I’m still incredulous that they hired her.

But I’m even more shocked by what must be a huge pool of white cucks.

I’m most angry at them. They’re a real danger, prepared to fight against their own interests, apparently not realizing they’ll be next to go.

It happens in all these revolutionary cases. The one I’ve read the most is Iran. Khomeini encouraged the Communists to risk and sometimes lose their lives fighting against the Shah. As soon as Khomeini was firmly in power, he turned on them. Many were killed, other endured long prison sentences.

I’ve read completely unrelated articles or books about how an aid group’s work was undone by huge population increases (if I recall rightly, one example was Ethiopia). Drilling a well doesn’t do much good with high birth rates.

There’s likely many more people “noticing” the phenomenon.

But the political correctness is so strong that only a mega-donor like Bill Gates can even mention it, and even then, it can’t be the main topic or appear in the headline.

Western aid seems to be focused in three categories
-Healthcare
-Education
-Military

Chinese aid by contrast is focused in
-Infrastructure

Healthcare increases both population size, and longevity. Education reduces fertility. Military aid is not delivered with the aim of causing needless wars to cull the population, if anything it gives the local military a higher status which increases corruption. Corruption usually retards economic development, thus keeping fertility higher.

I have doubts as to how much China is interested towards worker safety in the construction projects, injuries and fatalities are certainly higher than in the West. Infrastructure increases economic activity, which reduces fertility. Infrastructure also indebts the receipient country to China, future taxes will be increased to repay this debt. Fertility could further decrease as a result of shouldering a higher tax burden.

Should the West develop an interest in megaprojects like China, two obvious ideas are using the Sahara as a solar power source, and the “green sahara” to increase farmland. I don’t think a Malthusian collapse is that plausible, the West currently wastes food at the consumption stage, and Africans waste it at the production stage and through spoilage. Increasing electricty would allow for refrigeration.

The West’s leading priority should be to stabilize Libya, its destabilization is the root of the migrant surge. We would also be better off paying North African countries to secure their borders, while ending farm subsidies in the First World. Europeans are too emotionally compromised to secure their borders, Arabs don’t share this delusion. Labor intensive crops would be produced at the source of cheap labor, rather than trafficking labor across continents. Stringent feminist standards should be applied to any high fertility country that requests any aid from the West.

Stringent feminist standards should be applied to any high fertility country that requests any aid from the West.

but, the men of those countries will never allow it! This is what Westerners and, particularly Progressives don't understand: the men that are migrating to Europe and USA/Canada/Aus, etc., (and forming these parallel communities in Sweden, for instance) do not believe in feminism. They want Western women to wear a burqua or at least a hijab asap. Having many children (and several wives) is a status symbol.

Buffet is a high functioning idiot savant, I doubt he feels the ethnic kinship. Eating at the same steakhouse and his routines, despite his wealth, are all signs that he is a rainman, albeit one who can pass.

Sam Walton had similar routines. Was he the same way?

Sam’s wife was quite liberal, she made significant donations to Planned Parenthood. Her liberalism did not extend to paying estate taxes, the Waltons created whole new case law via their attempts to dodge the taxman.

Sam enjoyed his reputation as a bird hunter, but he was also a college graduate (much less common in the 1940s) and an avid squash/tennis player. The latter aren’t your typical rural rube activities.

One of his sons was a Vietnam veteran, so the family did show higher levels of patriotism than most elites at the time and since. (Neither a Romney nor a Trump can say that) But at the contrary, two of his other sons didn’t serve despite being of age.

His campaign to “Buy American” was clearly a stunt, if not a gasp of senility. The company stopped it once he was dead.

Young Sam Walton had wanted to get a grad degree in finance at Wharton, but then something got in the way (WWII?). I have a vague impression that Walton's father was not very successful, but Sam had an uncle who was highly successful in business. I think that's not uncommon in tycoons: if you just look at his father's career, the tycoon looks like he came out of nowhere, but often he had an uncle who was a bigshot. I believe Michael Milken, for instance, is like that: grew up in a middle class nuclear family, but had an uncle who was quite rich. I think very rich men tend to have somebody in the family setting an example of just how rich you can get if you try really hard.

I've been married for close to forty years and have a couple kids -- I'm way beyond being defensive about such things.

No, my point is that for the health of this society we need to get beyond the point where people are ridiculed because they don't recklessly jump into bed with anyone of the opposite sex when they are still too young to (legally) drink alochol.

I have lived through the entire "sexual revolution" from beginning to end: it has not ended well.

It's time to admit that our Victorian great-great-grandparents had more sense when it came to relations between the sexes than the people who dominate our culture today. (And, no, our Victorian ancestors were not "incels": if they had been they could not have become ancestors! But, they did have some sense that long-term commitment had something to do with sex.)

I've seen the fifty-year experiment with your approach to sex.

It failed.

Excellent post. That commenter is an idiot, not to mention they can’t even come up with a handle.

I've met some black Africans and some white Europeans and almost without exception, I'll take the black Africans. They didn't meddle in our election, they didn't draw us into 2 world wars (300k dead in Europe), they don't demand that we defend them. If there's a bigger loaded gun pointed at America than London, Paris and Berlin, I'd like to see it. Their inability to procreate is wonderful.

lol. Black Africans and Europeans ? You must get out alot. Have I got a timeshare for you. Downtown Lagos. Full of vibrant diversity and black africans. No defense demands or meddle stuff. These guys love white women too !

Sam's wife was quite liberal, she made significant donations to Planned Parenthood. Her liberalism did not extend to paying estate taxes, the Waltons created whole new case law via their attempts to dodge the taxman.

Sam enjoyed his reputation as a bird hunter, but he was also a college graduate (much less common in the 1940s) and an avid squash/tennis player. The latter aren't your typical rural rube activities.

One of his sons was a Vietnam veteran, so the family did show higher levels of patriotism than most elites at the time and since. (Neither a Romney nor a Trump can say that) But at the contrary, two of his other sons didn't serve despite being of age.

His campaign to "Buy American" was clearly a stunt, if not a gasp of senility. The company stopped it once he was dead.

Young Sam Walton had wanted to get a grad degree in finance at Wharton, but then something got in the way (WWII?). I have a vague impression that Walton’s father was not very successful, but Sam had an uncle who was highly successful in business. I think that’s not uncommon in tycoons: if you just look at his father’s career, the tycoon looks like he came out of nowhere, but often he had an uncle who was a bigshot. I believe Michael Milken, for instance, is like that: grew up in a middle class nuclear family, but had an uncle who was quite rich. I think very rich men tend to have somebody in the family setting an example of just how rich you can get if you try really hard.

From what I recall from reading his book Made in America, it was his banking executive father-in-law who was the source of some of his early financing. If he guided a bank through the Depression he would have been quite a hustler.

His wife was also a college graduate, even more unusual for the time. Rather amazing how he was able to pull off the everyman appeal.

Or, he inherited the entrepreneurial genes from his mother--his uncle's sister--rather than from his father. I should think most readers of this blog, who largely believe that "biology is destiny," would tend to prefer that explanation.

Young Sam Walton had wanted to get a grad degree in finance at Wharton, but then something got in the way (WWII?). I have a vague impression that Walton's father was not very successful, but Sam had an uncle who was highly successful in business. I think that's not uncommon in tycoons: if you just look at his father's career, the tycoon looks like he came out of nowhere, but often he had an uncle who was a bigshot. I believe Michael Milken, for instance, is like that: grew up in a middle class nuclear family, but had an uncle who was quite rich. I think very rich men tend to have somebody in the family setting an example of just how rich you can get if you try really hard.

From what I recall from reading his book Made in America, it was his banking executive father-in-law who was the source of some of his early financing. If he guided a bank through the Depression he would have been quite a hustler.

His wife was also a college graduate, even more unusual for the time. Rather amazing how he was able to pull off the everyman appeal.

My vague impression is that the Scots-Irish of the Ozarks, who initially formed the bulk of the Wal-Mart workforce, tended to see Sam Walton the way their ancestors had seen Andrew Jackson: as a rightful leader of his people.

From what I recall from reading his book Made in America, it was his banking executive father-in-law who was the source of some of his early financing. If he guided a bank through the Depression he would have been quite a hustler.

His wife was also a college graduate, even more unusual for the time. Rather amazing how he was able to pull off the everyman appeal.

My vague impression is that the Scots-Irish of the Ozarks, who initially formed the bulk of the Wal-Mart workforce, tended to see Sam Walton the way their ancestors had seen Andrew Jackson: as a rightful leader of his people.

Bentonville, where Walmart is headquartered, is not a typically Southern town, it actually supported the Union during the Civil War. Their region of Arkansas was the outlier to the Solid South, it was voting Republican even when Clinton and Carter were on the ballot.

While I prefer to view Walton as an inventive, but unethical, businessman; you are correct that his folk hero reputation was deserved. He was logistically more efficient than his competitors, and located his stores in otherwise depressed small towns that were considered unviable by the department stores. He also employed lots of newly unemployed farm workers, as the Ozarks mechanized agriculture a decade or two later than the wealthier German-Scandinavian Midwest. He was also a great proponent of using feminism to control labor costs, which came back to bite the company in the 1990s.

My vague impression is that the Scots-Irish of the Ozarks, who initially formed the bulk of the Wal-Mart workforce, tended to see Sam Walton the way their ancestors had seen Andrew Jackson: as a rightful leader of his people.

My vague impression is that the Scots-Irish of the Ozarks, who initially formed the bulk of the Wal-Mart workforce, tended to see Sam Walton the way their ancestors had seen Andrew Jackson: as a rightful leader of his people.

Bentonville, where Walmart is headquartered, is not a typically Southern town, it actually supported the Union during the Civil War. Their region of Arkansas was the outlier to the Solid South, it was voting Republican even when Clinton and Carter were on the ballot.

While I prefer to view Walton as an inventive, but unethical, businessman; you are correct that his folk hero reputation was deserved. He was logistically more efficient than his competitors, and located his stores in otherwise depressed small towns that were considered unviable by the department stores. He also employed lots of newly unemployed farm workers, as the Ozarks mechanized agriculture a decade or two later than the wealthier German-Scandinavian Midwest. He was also a great proponent of using feminism to control labor costs, which came back to bite the company in the 1990s.

Bentonville, where Walmart is headquartered, is not a typically Southern town, it actually supported the Union during the Civil War. Their region of Arkansas was the outlier to the Solid South, it was voting Republican even when Clinton and Carter were on the ballot.

While I prefer to view Walton as an inventive, but unethical, businessman; you are correct that his folk hero reputation was deserved. He was logistically more efficient than his competitors, and located his stores in otherwise depressed small towns that were considered unviable by the department stores. He also employed lots of newly unemployed farm workers, as the Ozarks mechanized agriculture a decade or two later than the wealthier German-Scandinavian Midwest. He was also a great proponent of using feminism to control labor costs, which came back to bite the company in the 1990s.

My impression from making sales calls to Walmart HQ in Bentonville, Arkansas in the early 1990s was that the work force considered the rest of corporate America to be soft and decadent.

The interesting thing is that a relative backwater like Northwest Arkansas has not only Walmart, but J.B. Hunt and Tyson. It kicks far above its weight compared to Portland Oregon, which has Nike and not much else.

If he meant "many years" after high school, that would suggest he likely was incel during college, right? Since college is only 4 years. He went to law school, which is 3 years, right after graduating college. That's a total of 7 years of schooling right after high school. "Many years" after high school would likely imply he was incel until his law school years or even after. He graduated law school in 1990 and met his wife in 2001. It seems plausible that he was incel until after he graduated law school. If he was incel until he got married, he would have been in 40 year old virgin territory.

Anonymous[276] wrote to me:

If he meant “many years” after high school, that would suggest he likely was incel during college, right? Since college is only 4 years. He went to law school, which is 3 years, right after graduating college. That’s a total of 7 years of schooling right after high school. “Many years” after high school would likely imply he was incel until his law school years or even after.

Were three years “many years”? Five years? Twenty years?

He intentionally left it vague, which seems the dignified way to deal with the matter. Whether he was promiscuous at the time referred to in the accusations matters. Beyond that, well, it’s not really your or my business, is it?

Anonymous also wrote:

If he was incel until he got married, he would have been in 40 year old virgin territory.

Which, I suppose, would prove he has a lot more self-discipline that you do!

In any case, we don’t know, and it is none of our business. I don’t know whether or not Kavanaugh will be a good Supreme Court justice. But, on this specific matter, he wisely showed judicial restraint.

My impression from making sales calls to Walmart HQ in Bentonville, Arkansas in the early 1990s was that the work force considered the rest of corporate America to be soft and decadent.

The interesting thing is that a relative backwater like Northwest Arkansas has not only Walmart, but J.B. Hunt and Tyson. It kicks far above its weight compared to Portland Oregon, which has Nike and not much else.

I’m waiting for someone to make the following argument in favor of continued rapid African population growth: Africa is genetically the world’s most diverse continent. Africa has the world’s fastest people but also its slowest and no doubt its smartest. Four billion Africans, by this century’s end, would contain thousands of Einsteins, Galileos and Leonardo da Vincis.

If he meant “many years” after high school, that would suggest he likely was incel during college, right? Since college is only 4 years. He went to law school, which is 3 years, right after graduating college. That’s a total of 7 years of schooling right after high school. “Many years” after high school would likely imply he was incel until his law school years or even after.

Were three years "many years"? Five years? Twenty years?

He intentionally left it vague, which seems the dignified way to deal with the matter. Whether he was promiscuous at the time referred to in the accusations matters. Beyond that, well, it's not really your or my business, is it?

Anonymous also wrote:

If he was incel until he got married, he would have been in 40 year old virgin territory.

Which, I suppose, would prove he has a lot more self-discipline that you do!

In any case, we don't know, and it is none of our business. I don't know whether or not Kavanaugh will be a good Supreme Court justice. But, on this specific matter, he wisely showed judicial restraint.

If he were a real believer, he would have concentrated his efforts on birth control in Africa. Instead, his focus was on poverty and AIDS. The population has exploded in Africa to a large extent due to the efforts of philanthropists like Gates and the work of the Christian charities.

While these efforts are noble (Who can argue against alleviating suffering?) they have resulted in a population crisis in Africa that threatens not only Africa, but the West due to our suicidal liberalism.

Unlike Bono, I am doubtful that a mass migration of Africans to the West will be a good thing for the West.

Good for Africans, but not so good for Western nations and white European people.

Births aren’t randomly distributed geographically. Rather, they are concentrated in the places where poverty is concentrated.

The SJW solution will be to redistribute the fecund poor from the tragic dirt to the magic dirt.

And, poor women are the majority of women who get abortions. This is a fact.

Contraception and sexual health was introduced in schools in Northern Europe and the USA around 1970 (at least on the Coasts). I remember the wealthy HS girls and college girls I knew, took a sudden trip with mom to Bermuda/NYC/ Paris or something, just for a long weekend – wealthy young women use contraceptives; and, if there is an unwanted pregnancy, they go to a private dr. somewhere out of town. I’m sure this is still the case today.

Unwanted pregnancies do occur (or dangerous, ectopic ones) and, I am fine with abortion if it is done in the first 4-8 weeks. And, poor women raising children alone is one of the great burdens of tax payers in the Western World, so perhaps abortion is logical in many cases. I know this is a harsh opinion, but I have also seen the tough life a kid has who is low-income and is very conscious of it.

I have thoroughly taught my sons to understand sex; pregnancy; waiting for quality; behavior in the dating world; what women are like that books don’t tell them, etc. There are also, fine books that allow them to understand human relationships and sexuality. I have always told them to wait until they are around 30 (one of my kids is amazingly mature at 18) to marry, and, only marry someone they completely know and that that woman also knows herself (and knows you) – saves a lot of anguish.

I'm waiting for someone to make the following argument in favor of continued rapid African population growth: Africa is genetically the world's most diverse continent. Africa has the world's fastest people but also its slowest and no doubt its smartest. Four billion Africans, by this century's end, would contain thousands of Einsteins, Galileos and Leonardo da Vincis.

This argument was essentially made years ago by the economist Julian Simon.

Overpopulation has been the real bugbear of batty left-wing types for as long as anyone can remember. You scratch the surface of any environmentalist, for instance, and you'll see the overpopulation worrier underneath. But I guess it has to remain sub-rosa in this era, for obvious reasons.

Personally, I've found the fear of overpopulation generally coexists with the urge to round up all the undesirables, put them in a rocket, and launch them into the sun. But that's just been my experience.

I think the African population boom will most likely sort itself out, as long as we don't intervene in any way. So it'll probably not sort itself out.

I think the African population boom will most likely sort itself out, as long as we don’t intervene in any way. So it’ll probably not sort itself out.

It will only sort itself out if we wall the place off and watch as they consume every edible thing in the area. If we let them out, it won’t. Do we have the guts to do what is necessary?

Western aid seems to be focused in three categories
-Healthcare
-Education
-Military

Chinese aid by contrast is focused in
-Infrastructure

Healthcare increases both population size, and longevity. Education reduces fertility. Military aid is not delivered with the aim of causing needless wars to cull the population, if anything it gives the local military a higher status which increases corruption. Corruption usually retards economic development, thus keeping fertility higher.

I have doubts as to how much China is interested towards worker safety in the construction projects, injuries and fatalities are certainly higher than in the West. Infrastructure increases economic activity, which reduces fertility. Infrastructure also indebts the receipient country to China, future taxes will be increased to repay this debt. Fertility could further decrease as a result of shouldering a higher tax burden.

Should the West develop an interest in megaprojects like China, two obvious ideas are using the Sahara as a solar power source, and the "green sahara" to increase farmland. I don't think a Malthusian collapse is that plausible, the West currently wastes food at the consumption stage, and Africans waste it at the production stage and through spoilage. Increasing electricty would allow for refrigeration.

The West's leading priority should be to stabilize Libya, its destabilization is the root of the migrant surge. We would also be better off paying North African countries to secure their borders, while ending farm subsidies in the First World. Europeans are too emotionally compromised to secure their borders, Arabs don't share this delusion. Labor intensive crops would be produced at the source of cheap labor, rather than trafficking labor across continents. Stringent feminist standards should be applied to any high fertility country that requests any aid from the West.

Stringent feminist standards should be applied to any high fertility country that requests any aid from the West.

but, the men of those countries will never allow it! This is what Westerners and, particularly Progressives don’t understand: the men that are migrating to Europe and USA/Canada/Aus, etc., (and forming these parallel communities in Sweden, for instance) do not believe in feminism. They want Western women to wear a burqua or at least a hijab asap. Having many children (and several wives) is a status symbol.

Young Sam Walton had wanted to get a grad degree in finance at Wharton, but then something got in the way (WWII?). I have a vague impression that Walton's father was not very successful, but Sam had an uncle who was highly successful in business. I think that's not uncommon in tycoons: if you just look at his father's career, the tycoon looks like he came out of nowhere, but often he had an uncle who was a bigshot. I believe Michael Milken, for instance, is like that: grew up in a middle class nuclear family, but had an uncle who was quite rich. I think very rich men tend to have somebody in the family setting an example of just how rich you can get if you try really hard.

Or, he inherited the entrepreneurial genes from his mother–his uncle’s sister–rather than from his father. I should think most readers of this blog, who largely believe that “biology is destiny,” would tend to prefer that explanation.

I think there is a fair amount of role model influence in career choice.

For example, would a very young Bill Gates have been so locked in on gaining a monopoly position if his father wasn't a prominent antitrust lawyer?

I'm a pretty smart guy, although not as smart as Gates (a guy worked for me and for Gates, so I have reason for what I'm saying), but I basically never thought about monopoly power until MBA school. I don't think even Steve Jobs thought about monopoly power that much until after Gates showed him what could be done.

Western aid seems to be focused in three categories
-Healthcare
-Education
-Military

Chinese aid by contrast is focused in
-Infrastructure

Healthcare increases both population size, and longevity. Education reduces fertility. Military aid is not delivered with the aim of causing needless wars to cull the population, if anything it gives the local military a higher status which increases corruption. Corruption usually retards economic development, thus keeping fertility higher.

I have doubts as to how much China is interested towards worker safety in the construction projects, injuries and fatalities are certainly higher than in the West. Infrastructure increases economic activity, which reduces fertility. Infrastructure also indebts the receipient country to China, future taxes will be increased to repay this debt. Fertility could further decrease as a result of shouldering a higher tax burden.

Should the West develop an interest in megaprojects like China, two obvious ideas are using the Sahara as a solar power source, and the "green sahara" to increase farmland. I don't think a Malthusian collapse is that plausible, the West currently wastes food at the consumption stage, and Africans waste it at the production stage and through spoilage. Increasing electricty would allow for refrigeration.

The West's leading priority should be to stabilize Libya, its destabilization is the root of the migrant surge. We would also be better off paying North African countries to secure their borders, while ending farm subsidies in the First World. Europeans are too emotionally compromised to secure their borders, Arabs don't share this delusion. Labor intensive crops would be produced at the source of cheap labor, rather than trafficking labor across continents. Stringent feminist standards should be applied to any high fertility country that requests any aid from the West.

I think it’s too late to stabilize Libya.

The fight within Islam between the moderates/seculars and the fanatics is too long standing and ultimately cannot be resolved. It’s broken out from time to time throughout the history of Islam.

Stringent feminist standards should be applied to any high fertility country that requests any aid from the West.

but, the men of those countries will never allow it! This is what Westerners and, particularly Progressives don't understand: the men that are migrating to Europe and USA/Canada/Aus, etc., (and forming these parallel communities in Sweden, for instance) do not believe in feminism. They want Western women to wear a burqua or at least a hijab asap. Having many children (and several wives) is a status symbol.

You are correct about the true believers of Islam being crazed fanatics.

They will laugh at anyone attempting to reduce their fertility.

And their willingness to engage in lethal violence makes them very hard to deal with.

Or, he inherited the entrepreneurial genes from his mother--his uncle's sister--rather than from his father. I should think most readers of this blog, who largely believe that "biology is destiny," would tend to prefer that explanation.

I think there is a fair amount of role model influence in career choice.

For example, would a very young Bill Gates have been so locked in on gaining a monopoly position if his father wasn’t a prominent antitrust lawyer?

I’m a pretty smart guy, although not as smart as Gates (a guy worked for me and for Gates, so I have reason for what I’m saying), but I basically never thought about monopoly power until MBA school. I don’t think even Steve Jobs thought about monopoly power that much until after Gates showed him what could be done.

Certainly nurture will play its role in whom you become. For decades, conventional wisdom used to speculate that nature and nurture each contributed approximately 50% to one's destiny, be it success or failure. Nowadays I read in this very blog that the experts skew towards a rather larger contribution from nature.

Do most successful people choose their life's path because they are inspired by a role model, or because they are perceptive enough to discover where their talents lie? Michael Jordan's son had the best role model an aspiring basketball player could ever have, but he was mediocre even in a middling college program. Irene Joliot-Curie was undoubtedly inspired by her mother, but never would have won her own Nobel in physics if she didn't have the innate intellectual talent for the job.

Having an effective role model certainly gives one an edge--allows one to see possibilities that most do not, but only if the other necessary tools conferred by genetics are there. If Gates or Jobs didn't have at least some small modicum of tolerance for writing computer code or designing circuitry (which I do not), their respective accomplishments would have been in some fields other than where they made their mark. They both certainly had the critical factor of ambition, whether innate or learned.

Why would I move? I never said I didn't like white-run societies and white technology and white rule of law. That doesn't mean I think Europeans mean us well. They don't. They want us dead, end of story. We need to wake up and realize that.

If anyone ‘wants us dead’, (anyway I’m fairly convinced you’re not of white ethnicity), it’s that certain section of the US population that boasts an ‘interracial differential murder coefficient’ of at least a factor of eight.

I think there is a fair amount of role model influence in career choice.

For example, would a very young Bill Gates have been so locked in on gaining a monopoly position if his father wasn't a prominent antitrust lawyer?

I'm a pretty smart guy, although not as smart as Gates (a guy worked for me and for Gates, so I have reason for what I'm saying), but I basically never thought about monopoly power until MBA school. I don't think even Steve Jobs thought about monopoly power that much until after Gates showed him what could be done.

Certainly nurture will play its role in whom you become. For decades, conventional wisdom used to speculate that nature and nurture each contributed approximately 50% to one’s destiny, be it success or failure. Nowadays I read in this very blog that the experts skew towards a rather larger contribution from nature.

Do most successful people choose their life’s path because they are inspired by a role model, or because they are perceptive enough to discover where their talents lie? Michael Jordan’s son had the best role model an aspiring basketball player could ever have, but he was mediocre even in a middling college program. Irene Joliot-Curie was undoubtedly inspired by her mother, but never would have won her own Nobel in physics if she didn’t have the innate intellectual talent for the job.

Having an effective role model certainly gives one an edge–allows one to see possibilities that most do not, but only if the other necessary tools conferred by genetics are there. If Gates or Jobs didn’t have at least some small modicum of tolerance for writing computer code or designing circuitry (which I do not), their respective accomplishments would have been in some fields other than where they made their mark. They both certainly had the critical factor of ambition, whether innate or learned.

Jobs was not a programmer in the least and had no hardware skills besides Heathkit assembly level. Gates was a programmer, but not one so exceptional as to have attractive job offers coming in. Allen was a little better, but both pale in level of ability behind, say, a Stallman, a Knuth, etc.

Certainly nurture will play its role in whom you become. For decades, conventional wisdom used to speculate that nature and nurture each contributed approximately 50% to one's destiny, be it success or failure. Nowadays I read in this very blog that the experts skew towards a rather larger contribution from nature.

Do most successful people choose their life's path because they are inspired by a role model, or because they are perceptive enough to discover where their talents lie? Michael Jordan's son had the best role model an aspiring basketball player could ever have, but he was mediocre even in a middling college program. Irene Joliot-Curie was undoubtedly inspired by her mother, but never would have won her own Nobel in physics if she didn't have the innate intellectual talent for the job.

Having an effective role model certainly gives one an edge--allows one to see possibilities that most do not, but only if the other necessary tools conferred by genetics are there. If Gates or Jobs didn't have at least some small modicum of tolerance for writing computer code or designing circuitry (which I do not), their respective accomplishments would have been in some fields other than where they made their mark. They both certainly had the critical factor of ambition, whether innate or learned.

Basketball is a pretty obvious career path. Strangers go up to tall kids and tell them they should play basketball.

A lot of little sports like minor Olympic events are pretty hereditary, however.

Certainly nurture will play its role in whom you become. For decades, conventional wisdom used to speculate that nature and nurture each contributed approximately 50% to one's destiny, be it success or failure. Nowadays I read in this very blog that the experts skew towards a rather larger contribution from nature.

Do most successful people choose their life's path because they are inspired by a role model, or because they are perceptive enough to discover where their talents lie? Michael Jordan's son had the best role model an aspiring basketball player could ever have, but he was mediocre even in a middling college program. Irene Joliot-Curie was undoubtedly inspired by her mother, but never would have won her own Nobel in physics if she didn't have the innate intellectual talent for the job.

Having an effective role model certainly gives one an edge--allows one to see possibilities that most do not, but only if the other necessary tools conferred by genetics are there. If Gates or Jobs didn't have at least some small modicum of tolerance for writing computer code or designing circuitry (which I do not), their respective accomplishments would have been in some fields other than where they made their mark. They both certainly had the critical factor of ambition, whether innate or learned.

Jobs was not a programmer in the least and had no hardware skills besides Heathkit assembly level. Gates was a programmer, but not one so exceptional as to have attractive job offers coming in. Allen was a little better, but both pale in level of ability behind, say, a Stallman, a Knuth, etc.

You miss the forest for the trees. Jobs, with Wozniak who reportedly did most of the technological heavy lifting, basically introduced the personal computer to the public. That required some modicum of understanding of programming and hardware, whether he enjoyed such work or not, to bring the project to fruition. Same for Gates who developed the operating system that most PC's use to this very day. They had to be smart and informed in order to fulfill their drive to succeed. Will to power or mentor-driven inspiration alone are simply not enough.

Jobs was not a programmer in the least and had no hardware skills besides Heathkit assembly level. Gates was a programmer, but not one so exceptional as to have attractive job offers coming in. Allen was a little better, but both pale in level of ability behind, say, a Stallman, a Knuth, etc.

You miss the forest for the trees. Jobs, with Wozniak who reportedly did most of the technological heavy lifting, basically introduced the personal computer to the public. That required some modicum of understanding of programming and hardware, whether he enjoyed such work or not, to bring the project to fruition. Same for Gates who developed the operating system that most PC’s use to this very day. They had to be smart and informed in order to fulfill their drive to succeed. Will to power or mentor-driven inspiration alone are simply not enough.